This document discusses various aspects of civil procedure in Sri Lanka, including pre-trial steps, jurisdiction of courts, service of summons, amendments to pleadings, and postponement of trials. It provides details on cases that have helped establish principles related to these topics of civil procedure. The document is intended as a guide or reference material on the conduct of civil trials and pre-trial processes in Sri Lanka.
2. PRE TRIAL STEPS AND CONDUCT
OF CIVIL TRIALS. PRE TRIAL
STEPS AND CONDUCT
OF CIVIL TRIALS.
CONDUCT OF CIVIL TRIALS AND
PRE TRIAL STEPS IN CIVIL DISPUTES
4. Civil procedure is
aimed at setting the Civil Law in motion by
the State/Private or Unincorporated
Bodies for redress against denial of a right,
refusal to fulfil an obligation, neglect to
perform a duty and infliction of an
affirmative injury.
5.
6. SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND PROCEDURAL LAW
Rights and duties are
created by
substantive
law e.g Law of
Contract, Torts ect. and Procedural
Law is the vehicle that conveys a
suitor to his destination to reap the
benefit of the substantial Law
7.
8.
9. Regular procedure contemplates on the
defendant’s right to answer the allegations
made in the plaint before the pronouncement
of the judgement. Under summary procedure
the applicant supports the contents of his
petition by the affidavit and other evidence
(by way of exhibits) and the court after
consideration of the same, if a prima-facie
case is established immediately passes an
order on the defendant on condition that if
no opposition is shown that the order will be
made absolute.
10. The court is also empowered under
summary procedure to enter
interlocutory order appointing a day for
the determination of the matter of the
petition and intimating to the
respondents that he will be heard in
opposition. This type of orders are
made under 377 (b) of the code.
11. The Court within the local limits of whose
A) jurisdiction' a party defendant resides,
B) Where the land in respect of which the
action
is bought lies or is situate in whole or in part,
C) Where the cause of action arises, or
D) Where the contract sought to be enforced
was made.
12.
13. 39. Whenever any defendant or accused party
shall have pleaded in any action, proceeding or
matter brought in any Court of First Instance
neither party shall afterwards be entitled to object
to the jurisdiction of such court, but such court
shall be taken and held to have jurisdiction over
such action, proceeding or matter: Provided that
where it shall appear in the course of the
proceedings that the action, proceeding or matter
was brought in a court having no jurisdiction
intentionally and with previous knowledge of the
want of jurisdiction of such court, the Judge shall
be entitled at his discretion to refuse to proceed
further with the same, and to declare the
proceedings null and void.
14.
15. CAN JURISTIC PERSONS SAID TO RESIDE AT
THE
REGISTERED OFFICE
In Blue Diamond Diaond Ltd Vs Amsterdam
Vs Rotterdam Bank N.L 1993 2 SLR 249 it was
held that question as to whether a company
could be sued on the basis that the Company
being 'resident' at a particular place and it was
held that a juristic person cannot be sued on the
basis of it being resident at a particular place.
Supreme court
CAN JURISTIC PERSONS SAID TO RESIDE AT
THE
REGISTERED OFFICE
In Blue Diamond Diaond Ltd Vs Amsterdam
Vs Rotterdam Bank N.L 1993 2 SLR 249 it was
held that question as to whether a company
could be sued on the basis that the Company
being 'resident' at a particular place and it was
held that a juristic person cannot be sued on the
basis of it being resident at a particular place.
Supreme court
16. Martin Silva v. Central Engineering
Consultancy 2003 SLR 2 228
(Court of Appeal) it was held that
despite the failure to effect the
legislative clarification as spelt out in the
Civil Courts Commission Report, that a
liberal interpretation is permissible to
include a corporate body as residing at its
registered office, where there is no other
place of business."
17. Somasiri Vs Ceylon Petroleum
Corporation 1991 SLR 39
if the residence of the defendant is
not distinctly averred it is not a ground
to reject a plaint if the principal place
of business is situated within the
jurisdiction of court.
18.
19. Davith Appuhamy v
Perera 11 NLR150
A mortgage bond action based on
immovable property, should be filed
within the territorial limits of
the court where the mortgaged
property is situated
20. APPUHAMY VS. GUNASEKARA 2 NLR
155
AN ACTION BY A LESSEE OMPELLING
HIS LESSOR TO ACCEPT RENTAL
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN
ACTION RELATING TO LAND SINCE
THE CLAIM IS BASED ON THE LEASE
AGREEMENT.
21. Pelis Vs Silva 60 NLR 289
an action for specific performance of an
agreement to sell land was held not to be
an action in respect of land within the
meaning of section 9 (b) of the Civil
Procedure Code. A Court, therefore, has no
jurisdiction to try the case merely on the
ground that the land in respects of which
the contract was made is situated within
the local limits of its jurisdiction.
22. Ranghamy vs Kirihamy 7 NLR 357. Plaintiff
in that case sued the defendant in the
District Court of Kandy. Here, the
defendants were resident outside Kandy
and the land itself was situated outside.
The District Court of Kandy was yet held to
have had jurisdiction by reason of the fact
that the lease agreement was entered into
in Kandy
23. Nallathambi Vs Kurukkal 57 NLR 166, an action
for the redemption of an OTTY mortgage (where
the mortgager reaps only the benefits or fruits
of the property) and for the release of the
mortgaged land from the mortgage was
considered a dispute affecting an interest in
land and can, therefore, be brought in the court
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
land in question is situate.
24. It requires that the plaint should contain a
plain and concise statement of the
circumstances constituting each cause of
action and where and when it arose and
such statement shall be set forth in duly
numbered paragraphs; and where two or
more causes of action are set out the
statement of the circumstances
constituting each cause of action must be
separate and numbered.
25. If the plaint had been accepted
and summons issued on the
defendant, it is not a matter for
the court to act under 46 (2) but
for the defendant to raise the
point in his answer. This principle
was laid down for the case of
Mohideen Vs Gnanaprakasam 14
NLR 33.
26. When a plaint or an answer is not
rejected by a District Judge under
section 46 or section 77 of the Civil
Procedure Code for deficiency of
stamps, the presumption is that the
Judge has adjudicated in favour of the
party who had tendered the pleading
on the question as to the sufficiency of
the stamp thereon. See Jayawickrama
Vs Amarasooriya 17 NLR 174.
27. It is well established principle of law that the
plaint cannot be dismissed on the ground of
insufficiency of stamps alone. (37 NLR 436).
28. Sita Rajasingham Vs Maureen Seneviratne
and another (Supreme Court) S.C. 5/93
C.A. 194/91 1995 2 SLR 69.
in the absence of any statutory provision in
relation to the petitions filed under section
86 of the CPC, requiring that stamps should
be supplied at the time of its presentation;
or that such a petition filed without stamps
is valueless is no ground to reject an
application.
29. The proper procedure to be
followed when pleadings are not
stamped or insufficiently stamped
is to call for the stamps to be
provided with and upon failure to
reject the plaint or other
pleadings. (Vide Yusuf Mohamed Vs
Indian Overseas Bank 1999 3 SLR
278 and 1999 1 SLR 332.
30.
31. P Beatrice Perera Vs Commissioner
of National Housing were reported
in 77 NLR at page 361
Judgement delivered without
service of summons is ab initio void
and can be attacked in the original
court itself.
32. JOYCE PERERA V. LAL PERERA 2003 3 SLR 8
Civil Procedure Code, sections 55 (1), 84,
85 (1), 377, and 754 (1) - Summons not
served - Order nisi served in respect of
alimony pendente lite - Objections filed -
Answer not filed - Application for alimony
pendente lite withdrawn - Case fixed for
ex parte trial - Legality - Is this order a
judgment?
33. In Meeralewai vs. Seenithamby 48
NLR 140 Summons was served on the
Defendant in substituted form at his
residence which was the last known
place of abode according to the
Plaintiff. The Defendant was in fact
at the Mahara Prisons as last known
to the Plaintiff. The service was
held to be invalid.
34. Dharmasena And Another Vs The People's Bank
SUPREME COURT 2003 SLR 1 122
"The Code must be interpreted as far as
possible, in consonance with the principles of
natural justice, and the court can only be
satisfied that summons had been "duly served"
where the defendant has been given a fair
opportunity of presenting his case in his answer.
If not, the court has the power to give further
time for answer even if the defendant does not
ask." Held further that the order of the learned
district judge refusing to fixed the matter for
exparte trial is quite correct.
35. Jayasiri Edirisinghe Vs City Properties (Pvt) Ltd..,(CHC) peal No.
34/08, S.C.H.C.L.A. 18/08, H.C. Civil) 47/2006(01). The
discretionary power to amend pleadings must be exercised
subject to the limitations set out in Section 46(2). No
amendment is to be made which has the effect of converting
an action of one character into an action of another or
inconsistent character. The appellate court would be hesitant
to interfere with the exercise of such a discretion by the trial
Judge. This discretion could be viewed from the perspective of
the flexibility and the choice granted to the trial judge based
upon a consideration of all factors involved. This judicial
discretion of the Court must be exercised so as to do justice in a
case that is being tried with the ascertainment, declaration and
enforcement of the rights and liabilities of the parties as they
exist or are deemed to exist at the time the proceedings were
instituted.
36. Rathwatte v. Owen 2 NLR 141
the court stated that the
principle by which a Court ought
to be guided in deciding to alter
a pleading is that the alteration
will make the real issues clear.
37. Casim Lebbe v. Natchiya 21 NLR
205 it was held that a bonafide
Amendment which does not cause
prejudice to the other party
should be allowed.
38. Vipassi Nayake Thero vs. Jinarathane
Thero 66 CLW 43 it was held that there
should not be an objection to a correction
sought to be made facilitating the court
to identify the real issue between the
parties. This principle should however
operate subject to the condition that no
injustice is done to the opposite party.
Vipassi Nayake Thero vs. Jinarathane
Thero 66 CLW 43 it was held that there
should not be an objection to a correction
sought to be made facilitating the court
to identify the real issue between the
parties. This principle should however
operate subject to the condition that no
injustice is done to the opposite party.
39. Lebbe vs. Sandanam 64 NLR 461
(a) If the amendment sets up a new case.
(b) If the amendment converts an action of one character
into an action of another character.
(c) If the amendment has the effect of defeating an
objection based on prescription made by the other
party.
(d) If the amendment adds a new cause of action.
(e) An amendment which prejudices the rights of the
opposite party.
(f) If the amendment changes the substance and the
essence of the original action.
40. Uberis v.jayawardene 62 NLR 217
An action in respect of one land
cannot be converted into an action in
respect of another land by an
amendment of pleadings
41. Abeywardene v. Euginahamy 1984 2 SLLR 231
Belatedness of the application for amendment is
not a ground for refusing the application AS FAR
AS the Amendment of the plaint does not
seeking to widen the scope or alter the
character of the action and No new cause of
action is averred. Merely seeking to elucidate
the title in the original plaint BY THE
AMENDMENT SHOULD BE PERMITTED.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46. De Alwis v. De Alwis - 76 NLR 444 it
was laid down as a rule that a Court
will not allow to set up a claim by an
amendment of the plaint if a fresh
claim would be barred by prescription
at the date of the application to
amend the plaint. However, where
there are special and peculiar
circumstances which require the
amendment to be ordered in the
interests of justice the provisions of
section 93 of the Civil Procedure Code
are wide enough to allow such an
amendment.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53. Gunasekera v. Abdul Latiff 1995 1 SLR
225 that an application for an
Amendment should not be allowed
unless the delay is explained. In A
vudiappan v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd
1995 2 SLR 131 it was held that
"laches" mean delay that cannot be
reasonably explained.
54. In the recent case of Kuruppuarachchi v. Andrea
1996 2 SLR 11 it was held that consequent to the
1991 amendment a Court is precluded from allowing
an Amendment once a matter is fixed for trial .
except for the reasons set out in the subsection to
Section 93.
55. Ceylon Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanayakkara 1999 3 SLR
50 an amendment should not be allowed unless the
Court is satisfied that;
a) Grave and irremediable injustice will be caused
to the party applying, and
b) That such party is not guilty of Laches.
It was further held in this case that the Court must
be satisfied about both reasons above and then
record the reasons for its order.
56. Hatton National Bank v. Silva 1999 3 SLR 113
the plaintiff had instituted action against the
Defendants, and later sought to add a cause of
action based on damages. The application was
allowed by the trial Judge. However, it was
held by the Court of Appeal that the
Amendment should not have been allowed
since it introduces a new cause of action.
57.
In Gunasekera v. Punchimenike 2002 2 SLR 43 IT
WAS ALID DOWN THAT no amendment should be
allowed once an ex-parte trial has been
ordered.
58. Seylan Bank v. Thangaveil 2004 2 SLR 101 Court of
Appeal had to consider the question whether the
Caption of a plaint could be amended to correct the
name of the party. In this case the correct surname
of the defendant was put in the caption but his
other names were incorrect. It was held by
Wimalachandra J that such an error would not be one
which is contemplated under Section 93 of the Code
and that such error amounts to a correction of a
clerical error.
59. The right to postpone a trial is
indispensable in any system of justice, for
without that right the system can collapse
altogether because it can result in a
miscarriage of justice, if a postponement
on a genuine ground is unreasonably turned
down. The Code provides that when any
case is called for hearing, the court may,
for sufficient cause, postpone the hearing
to another day, upon such terms as to
costs or otherwise as the court shall think
fit.
60. *After the case is fixed for trial there
is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code
to the abate an action if a period of
twelve months elapses after the last
entry of an order or proceeding in the
record without the plaintiff taking a
necessary step to prosecute his cause.
61. It is the duty of court to fix a day for the
hearing of a case, and not to wait for an
application of a party. The case of
Fernando vs. Curera, 2 N.L.R. 29 amply
recognizes the rule as to who should take
the initiative to fix a case for hearing.
62. *an order of abatement of an
action can be made under section
402 of the Civil Procedure Code
only if the plaintiff has failed to
take a step rendered necessary by
the law. It was further
emphasized that when an order "
laying by " a case has been made
by a Court, the duty of restoring
the case to the trial roll rests on
the Court and not on the parties.
In Suppramaniam v. Symons [1
(1915) 18 N. L. R. 229]
*After the case is fixed for trial
there is nothing in the Civil
Procedure Code to abate an
action if a period of twelve
months elapses after the last
entry of an order or proceeding in
the record without the plaintiff
taking a necessary step to
prosecute his cause. In this
context plaintiff includes a
defendant who has preferred a
claim in reconvention.
63. *when an order
*" laying by " a case
has been made by a
Court, the duty of
restoring the case
to the trial roll
rests on the Court
and not on the
parties.
64. *Abating a suit could not be made without notice to parties. If
an order under 402 is made without notice, it was said that it
would destroy the very foundation of the right to have notice.
Therefore, Judges who desire to act ex mero motu under
section 402 should not ignore the view expressed in
Suppramaniam v. Symons
*Abating a suit could not be made without notice to parties. If
an order under 402 is made without notice, it was said that it
would destroy the very foundation of the right to have notice.
Therefore, Judges who desire to act ex mero motu under
section 402 should not ignore the view expressed in
Suppramaniam v. Symons
65.
66. *IF THE LAST ORDER MADE BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE BEFORE
ENTERING THE ORDER OF ABATEMENT WAS "NO ORDER" THERE
WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFF TO TAKE
ANY NECESSARY STEP TO PROSECUTE THE ACTION.
*See Associated Newspapers of Ceylon, Ltd. v. Kadirgamar and
Lorensu Apphamy v. Paaris.
* [1 (1934) 36 N.L.R. 108.]
*[2 (1908) 11N.L.R. 202.]
67. *Application for postponements due to absence of witnesses
should be considered in the light of the culpability of a party
who relies on the evidence of absent witnesses.
*The ground, relied upon was the absence of a material
witness who was duly summoned. The court held that the
postponement applied for should have been allowed. Sammy
Singho vs. Henry Silva.
50 N.L.R. 192
68. *In Fernando v. Andiris there was no material to show that the
evidence of the plaintiff was necessary to continue with the
plaintiff’s action. However the plaintiff moved for an adjournment
and the same was refused. It was pointed out that the plaintiff's
Proctor should have called such evidence as was available on behalf
of the plaintiff and should not have declined to call any evidence
after the refusal of the application for postponement and there
being no evidence, the order of the District Judge dismissing the
plaintiff's claim was justified. (1905)2 A.C.R.141
*
* (1905) 2 A. C. R. 141.]
69. *SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLOSURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE THE
DEFENDANT LED THE EVIDENCE OF ONE WITNESS AND THEREAFTER
AT THE RESUMPTION OF THE TRIAL DEFAULTED IN HIS APPEARANCE.
*CAN THE TRIAL BE REGARDED AS INTERPATES? IN SUCH A
SITUATION, IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT THE ONLY COURSE WHICH THE
COURT COULD HAVE ADOPTED WAS TO ENTER DECREE NISI IN
FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF IN TERMS OF SECTION 85 OF THE CPC
AND THAT IN SUCH A CASE THE COURT CANNOT GIVE JUDGEMENT
TO THE PLAINTIFF ON THE BASIS THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT
INTEND TO LEAD ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE. JOHANIS APPUHAMY VS
CARLINCHO
*
*67 N.L.R. 144
70. *UPON REFUSAL OF POSTPONEMENT, Counsel has no
right to withdraw from the case without the consent
of the Judge, and that it is his duty as an advocate to
proceed as far as he can with the examination of the
witnesses called by the opponent, and to adduce all
the evidence he has on his own side, and if it then
transpires that the evidence of a particular witness
whose absence was the cause of the application being
made was material, the trial Judge may at that stage
allow a postponement.
71. *Section 109 (1) of the CPC - for failure to comply with any order to
answer interrogatories, or for discovery, production, or inspection,
which has been duly served. In case of the defendant, such failure
may result in the defence, if any, be struck out, and he be placed in
the same position as if he had not appeared and answered. Failure to
comply with such orders may even result in the possibility of the
defaulter being found guilty of the offence of contempt of court.
*However, it is trite Law that the dismissal of an action under section
109 of the Civil Procedure Code can only be imposed on a party who
is guilty of wilful or contumacious refusal to carry out an order to
answer interrogatories.
72. 3rd plaintiff, who was a resident in Beirut, failed to comply
with an order to answer interrogatories as the time given was
insufficient. Hence, the court held that the 3rd plaintiff could
not be said to have been guilty of contumacious or wilful
refusal to carry out the order. Therefore, the order dismissing
the action in terms of section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code
was set aside.
73. *FOR VALID REASONS
RECORDED COURT CAN
DEVIATE FROM THE RULE AS
TO DAY TO HEARING AND
REFRAIN FROM FIXING
FURTHER HEARING WITHIN 6
WEEKS FROM THE LAST DAY.
*AS FAR AS PRACTIBLE THE
CONCEPT REGARDING DAY
TO DAY HEARING, WOULD
BRING IMEMNSE BENEFIT TO
THE PARTIES
75. “The person in whom is vested a discretion must exercise his
discretion upon reasonable grounds. A discretion does not
empower a man to do what he likes merely because he is
minded to do so-he must in the exercise of his discretion do
not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must,
by use of his reason, ascertain and follow the cause which
reasons direct. He must act reasonably”.
Roberts vs. Hopwood and others1925 AC page 578 at page 613
where Lord Wrenbury (House of Lords)
76. *1. IT HAS TO BE OF CONSENT
OF PARTIES IF THE CASE IS
TO BE DECIDED ON THE
FAILURE TO PAY COSTS.
*Etena vs. Appu 4N.L.R.185
*Weerasingha 47N.L.R. 281
*Simon Sinno vs. William
Appuhamy,
* when pre-payment of costs
is ordered, a particular time
is also fixed in the order
before which the payment
of cost must be made. In
that event, the payment
must be in compliance with
the time mentioned. 6
Cey. L. Rec. 99
77. 1. Dismissal of plaintiffs case, NOT JUSTIFIED because cost of
an adjournment, granted at the plaintiffs instance, had not
been paid as ordered.
2. It is the duty of the fiscal to serve summons for attendance
of witnesses. His failure is not a default of the plaintiff.
78. *Where a party to an action
has been granted time to
produce certain evidence
and fails to do so at the
hearing, the court has no
power to dismiss the action.
It must proceed to hear such
other evidence as may be
tendered on behalf of the
party in default and decide
the action forthwith."
COURT HAS NO
POWER TO DISMISS
AN ACTION IF A
PARTICULAR
WITNESS OR
DOCUMENT NOT
PRODUCED
CONSEQUENT UPON
THE ADJOURNMENT
FOR THAT PURPOSE
79. Under sections 143 of the Code adjournment is
entirely discretionary.
Under section 145 of the Code, if a party to whom
time has been granted fails to produce his evidence
or to bring his witnesses or to do any other act
necessary for the further progress of the case, for
which time has been allowed, the Court has power
notwithstanding such default, to decide the action
forthwith.
When the defendant repeatedly seeks adjournments
on one ground or the other and fails to bring
evidence, the Court should proceed to decide the
suit by rejecting the adjournment application. It is
appropriate for the court to dispose of the suit on
merits on the available evidence". ABREW VS.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION
80. Ramanaden Chetty vs. Fernando, an
application for a postponement by the
defendants was granted on their consenting
to pay Rs.75 to the plaintiff as his costs of
the day along with a sum of Rs.6.50 before
the next date of trial. In default of such
payment the defendants agreed to judgment
being entered as prayed for. On the trial
date the defendants tendered the money
but the plaintiff refused to accept it and
claimed judgment. The District Court held in
favour of the defendant and postponed the
case for trial sine die. The Supreme Court
upheld the plaintiffs 24 N.L.R. 411
81. Punchi Nona vs. Peiris, a postponement of the
trial was granted to the defendant on his
consenting to pay the plaintiff a fixed sum of
money by way of costs before the next date of
trial. The defendant also agreed to judgment
being entered for the plaintiffs if he made
default in the payment of costs. The defendant
defaulted in the payment of the costs but
pleaded that this was due to his being hindered
by the floods. The appellate Court held that
the Court had no power to grant relief to the
defendants against the breach of the
undertaking to pay costs in terms of the
agreement. 26 N.L.R.411
82. *In the latter case, the plaintiff undertook to pay the
defendant a stipulated amount as costs before 10 a.m. of a
specified date. He agreed to his action being dismissed in the
event of default. The plaintiff who failed to make the
payment of costs as agreed attempted to prove impossibility
of performance without success. The court in appeal held
that his action was liable to be dismissed in accordance with
his agreement.
*
*In the latter case, the plaintiff undertook to pay the
defendant a stipulated amount as costs before 10 a.m. of a
specified date. He agreed to his action being dismissed in the
event of default. The plaintiff who failed to make the
payment of costs as agreed attempted to prove impossibility
of performance without success. The court in appeal held
that his action was liable to be dismissed in accordance with
his agreement.
*
83. The rule, however, is applicable even where the terminal date
fixed for the payment of costs falls on a Sunday or on a holiday.
Simon Singho vs. William Appuhamy, 26 N.L.R.408
84. *Defendant was granted a postponement upon his undertaking
to pay Rs.75 a particular day that was a Poya day. If payment
was not made according to the undertaking the defendant
agreed to judgment being entered for the plaintiff.
*Costs tendered on the next day as he was unable to pay the
money on the previous day because, it was declared a
holiday. It was held in appeal that the undertaking to pay
costs simpliciter did not imply payment into Court.
Accordingly, the failure to make payment on 10th
September,
1969 brought into operation the consequences provided for in
the agreement.
*Defendant was granted a postponement upon his undertaking
to pay Rs.75 a particular day that was a Poya day. If payment
was not made according to the undertaking the defendant
agreed to judgment being entered for the plaintiff.
*Costs tendered on the next day as he was unable to pay the
money on the previous day because, it was declared a
holiday. It was held in appeal that the undertaking to pay
costs simpliciter did not imply payment into Court.
Accordingly, the failure to make payment on 10th
September,
1969 brought into operation the consequences provided for in
the agreement.
85.
86. Francis Wanigasekera vs. Pathirana, 1997 (3) Sri L.R.
231
The 2nd defendant-appellant was present and
represented by an Attorney-at Law when the order for
prepayment was made. The proceedings have a
statement that the defendant-appellant agreed to the
prepayment order. What more than this is necessary to
indicate the consent to prepay cost. The defendant had
not signed the record, if that is what is sought to be
argued as being what is required to signify consent, I
cannot subscribe to this view where the party agreeing
to the prepayment is present and is represented by an
Attorney-at-Law and signified in the proceedings as
having agreed to comply with the prepayment order -
87. *Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is demonstrative that
an appearance of a party may be by an attorney-at-law.
When the client requested attorney-at-law to make an
application it is an application the attorney-at-law makes on
behalf of the party he represents for the administration of
justice.
*Isek Fernando vs Rita Fernando - 1999 3 SLR at page 29
*Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is demonstrative that
an appearance of a party may be by an attorney-at-law.
When the client requested attorney-at-law to make an
application it is an application the attorney-at-law makes on
behalf of the party he represents for the administration of
justice.
*Isek Fernando vs Rita Fernando - 1999 3 SLR at page 29
88. the main question that arose for determination in that case was
whether a settlement entered in the presence of an attorney-
at-law of a party who was absent in court can assail the
settlement on the ground that he was not present in court at
the time the attorney-at-law adjusted the matter.
HELD that the attorney-at-law for the petitioners had acted
within the authority granted to him by the proxy and therefore
the settlement cannot be assailed merely on the ground of the
party not being present in court at the time the compromise
was recorded.
89. * 49. ( 1) The pl ai nt i f f shal l endorse on t he pl ai nt , or annex t heret o, a
memorandum of t he document s, i f any, whi ch he has produced al ong wi t h
i t
* 50. If a pl ai nt i f f sues upon a document i n hi s possessi on or power, he
shal l produce i t i n court when t he pl ai nt i s present ed.
* 51. If he rel i es on any ot her document s ( whet her i n hi s possessi on or
power or not ) as evi dence i n support of hi s cl ai m, he shal l ent er such
document s i n a l i st t o be added or annexed t o t he pl ai nt .
* 53. In t he case of any act i on upon a bi l l of exchange, promi ssory not e,
cheque, or any negot i abl e i nst rument , i f t he i nst rument i s l ost , and i f
an i ndemni t y be gi ven by t he pl ai nt i f f , agai nst t he cl ai ms of any ot her
person upon such i nst rument , t he court may make ENTER decree.
* 54. A document whi ch ought t o be produced i n court by t he pl ai nt i f f
90. *121 (2) Every party to an action shall, not less than fifteen
days before the date fixed or the trial of an action, tile or
cause to be filed in court after notice to the opposite party-
(a) a list of witnesses to be called by such party at the trial,
and (b) a list of the documents relied upon by such party and
to be produced at the trial
*121 (2) Every party to an action shall, not less than fifteen
days before the date fixed or the trial of an action, tile or
cause to be filed in court after notice to the opposite party-
(a) a list of witnesses to be called by such party at the trial,
and (b) a list of the documents relied upon by such party and
to be produced at the trial
91. 175 (1) No witness shall be called on behalf of any party unless
such witness shall have been included in the list of witnesses
previously filed in court by such party as provided by section
121:
Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion, if
special circumstances appear to it to render such a course
advisable in the interests of justice, permit a witness to be
examined, although such witness may not have been included in
such list aforesaid,
Provided also that any party to an action may be called as a
witness without his name having been included in any such list.
(2) A document which is required to be included in the list of
documents filed in court by a party as provided by section 121
and which is not so included shall not, without the leave of the
court, be received in evidence at the trial of the action :
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to documents
produced for cross examination of the witnesses of the opposite
92. *"before the day fixed for hearing” MEANS the first date on
which the trial is fixed for hearing. The question whether
the trial Judge can allow the entire list of documents in the
event of overruling an objection raised by a party in respect
of a single document contained in such list, should be
answered in the negative.
* Judge's finding that the plaintiff-petitioner’s objection was
belated is an error as the procedure adopted in the original
courts objecting to a document/witness, is namely, to object
when the document in question is sought to be marked or
when the witness in question is called to the witness box to
give evidence.
93. "The learned District Judge refused the
application because the plaintiffs ‘would be
placed at a disadvantage if Inspector
Sivasambo’s evidence was allowed to be
called’. This is no doubt correct in a sense,
but the paramount consideration is the
ascertainment of the truth and not the
readily understandable desire of a litigant
to be placed at a tactical advantage by
reason of some technicality”.
"The learned District Judge refused the
application because the plaintiffs ‘would be
placed at a disadvantage if Inspector
Sivasambo’s evidence was allowed to be
called’. This is no doubt correct in a sense,
but the paramount consideration is the
ascertainment of the truth and not the
readily understandable desire of a litigant
to be placed at a tactical advantage by
reason of some technicality”.
94. Tikiri Banda vs. Loku Menika, (decided in 1968) the
name of the witness was not included in list of
witnesses. The district judge gave judgment in
favour of the plaintiff upon the evidence of a
witness whose name was not included in the list of
witnesses filed in accordance with section 121 of
the Civil Procedure Code. His Lordship Basnayaka
CJ, taking a contrary view held that the evidence of
the witness was illegally admitted, and his evidence
could not form the basis of the judgment.
68N.L.R. 342
95. INQUIRIES
The provisions of section 121(2) and
175(2) of the Civil Procedure Code
relating to listing of documents do not
apply to an inquiry under section 86(2)
of the Civil Procedure Code to set
aside a decree entered for default.
These provisions are applicable only to
trials of actions of regular procedure.”
see Mercantile Credit Ltd. vs. Sisira
Kumara and Another. 1991 (1) Sri
INQUIRIES
The provisions of section 121(2) and
175(2) of the Civil Procedure Code
relating to listing of documents do not
apply to an inquiry under section 86(2)
of the Civil Procedure Code to set
aside a decree entered for default.
These provisions are applicable only to
trials of actions of regular procedure.”
see Mercantile Credit Ltd. vs. Sisira
Kumara and Another. 1991 (1) Sri
96. Walker & Sons Co. Ltd. vs. Masood, the list of
documents relied upon by the plaintiff was not
filed fifteen days prior to the date of trial.
Upon it being objected to, the District Judge
upheld the objection and rejected the
document. The order of the District Judge was
set aside by the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court on special leave being granted
held that the document has been referred to in
the plaint, and in the answer by way of reply to
the plaint and made the following pertinent
observations before directing that the
document should be accepted in evidence.
2004 (3) Sri L.R 195
97. *The DC has the discretion in terms of Section 175 (2) to admit
or to reject documents. The discretion of the trial Judge is
exercised purely to meet the ends of justice and the refusal
to receive the documents in question in evidence would in all
probability prevent the trial Judge coming to a just and
equitable determination. The Court in that case observed
that the refusal to receive the documents in question in
evidence would in all probability prevent the trial Judge
coming to a just and equitable determination.
98. General rules as to the exception
where there is in the interest of justice to do
so;
where it is necessary for the ascertainment of
the truth;
where there is no doubt about the authenticity
of the documents (as for instance certified
copies of public documents or records of
judicial proceedings);
where sufficient reasons are adduced for the
failure to list the document (as for instance
where the party was ignorant of its existence
at the trial).