CIVIL

PROCEDU
RE

01
 CIVIL PROCEDURE-1
ACTION

- A proceeding which is instituted for the prevention / redress of a civil wrong (includes a
nuisance) ; s. 6

; Re Gunasinghe : Question was whether an application for a writ of certiorari would constitute an
action. HELD: Yes.
BUT
Silver Line Bus v. Kandy Omnibus HELD : A writ for certiorari is not an action.

RIGHT OF ACTION

- A person who has a right of action has a right to petition court claiming relief.

CAUSE OF ACTION

- Foundation for a civil action is the existence of a cause of action.

Cause of action is the wrong for the prevention / redress for which an action maybe brought and
includes : s. 5
a) denial of right -
b) refusal to fulfil an obligation –
Jeganathan v. Ramanathan – Co owner of land subject to Thesawalamai can file an
action where he has not received prior notice of a sale of land by another co owner on
the basis of failure to fulfil an obligation .
c) neglecting to perform an obligation
d) inflicting an affirmative injury

* The meaning of the word “cause of action” in s. 5 is not exhaustive.

; Thiagarajah v. Kathigesu – P filed action asking court to issue a decree that P was not
married to D. Ps claim didn’t fall into categories in s. 5
HELD: Under s. 217 G DC has power to declare right / status. So cause of action exists
in a case where a decree is sought announcing the status of a party. s. 5 is not restrictive /
exhaustive.

- In order to establish a “cause of action” P must prove :

a) The existence of a right &
b) The violation of that right
(a mere threat / verbal statement is not sufficient to violate a right)

Jalaldeen v. Colombo MC
Lebbe v. Marikar
Subramainum Chetty v. Soysa
Raman Chetty v. Abdul Razak
Page38

- P could go to court either after/ immediately after the violation of P’s rights
 ( Actions instituted in the face of imminent violation are called quiatmet.)
Right to institute action in the case of imminent violation was recognised in Soysa v. Shanmugam

THE TYPE OF ACTION TO BE FILED

1. The type of action will either be s.7

a) Regular OR
b) Summary

See s. 7 Illustrations
* In actions of which the procedure is regular, the person against whom the application is
made is called upon to formally state his answer to the case which is alleged against him in the
application ‘before any question of fact is entertained by the court, or its discretion thereon is in
any degree exercised.

* In actions of which the procedure is summary, the applicant simultaneously with preferring
his application supports with proper evidence the statement of fact made therein ; and if the court
in its discretion considers that a prima facie case is thus made out-

(a) either the order sought is immediately passed against the defendant before he has been
afforded an opportunity of opposing it, but subject to the expressed qualification that it
will only take effect in the event of his not showing any good cause against it on a day
appointed therein for the purpose ;

(b) or a day is appointed by the court for entertaining the matter of the application on
the evidence furnished, and notice is given to the defendant that he will be heard in
opposition to it on that day if he thinks proper to come before the court for that purpose.

s. 8 Procedure of action will normally be regular except where it is provided in the CPC that
procedure in certain actions should be summary.
Most common type of actions are summary actions.

APPLICATION OF CPC

- Applies to proceedings before

i) DC * General jurisdiction set out in Judicature Act 1978
* Minister of Justice has issued a number of Gazette notifications demarcating the
geographical limits of every DC.

ii) PHC * Art. 154P of the 13th Amd. conferred original civil / limited writ /
revisionary / appellate jurisdiction on PHCs
* HC of Provinces (SP) Act 1996 conferred civil (commercial) jurisdiction on
PHCs of any Province declared by the Minister in case of Schedule 1 & to that of
the Western Province (Colombo) in case of Schedule 2.
* Ceylon Tea Marketing v Pre-Packed Exports : Every PHC of the Western
Province can exercise civil (commercial) jurisdiction.
Page38
DETERMINTION OF JURISDICTION

s. 9
Subject to the pecuniary / other limitations prescribed by law, action shall be instituted by court within the
local limits in or of whose jurisdiction:
a) a party D resides
b) the land in respect of which the action is brought is situated in whole or in part.
c) The cause of action arises
d) The contract sought to be enforced was made
According to s. 9 there are 2 types of limitation on jurisdiction

(a) Pecuniary Limitations

* Mediation Boards Act 1988 – every civil action the value of which is less than Rs. 25,000
must be referred to for mediation before proceeding to court ; s. 7 (1) (a)

* HC of Provinces (SP) Act 1996 – a cause of action based on a commercial transaction, the value
of which exceeds 3 million should be heard by the designated PHC (Commercial HC)

(b) Non-pecuniary limitations

* Arbitration Act 1995 – If a contract containing an arbitration clause, any party claiming a
right under such contract can only proceed to court after referring the matter for arbitration.

* Ouster clauses - Where a statute provides that a decision made by a statutory body /
person cannot be questioned in any court of law - no original court
can take matter up

BASING OF AN ACTION

Action can be instituted in the following places

(1) Where D resides (at the place of residence of any one of the Ds ; Fernando v. Vaas)
Tirimanbura v. Dissanayake
Hassan v. Peiris – Where there are several Ds, the action could be filed at the place of reference
of any party defendant.

But in matrimonial actions – can institute action where D resides or where P resides.

Residence = Where his family would be

- Where D resides in a place other than where his family resides – must consider
whether D had the intention of returning to his family. If he had intention –
residence is where the family resides.
- temporary place of abode – not residence ; Butler v. Able White
- A juristic person cannot be said to reside in a particular place ; Blue Diamonds
v. Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank (Mark Fernando J)
Page38

Somasiri v. Ceylon Petroleum Murugesu v. Muthukumary

 (2) Where the land is situated – applies to actions relating to land
- P can file case in whichever court when the land is situated within several
territorial limits.
- Action relating to land – includes rei vindicatio actions, actions for eviction,
actions to enforce servitudal rights over land.
Appuhamy v. Gunawardena – P (lessee) filled action against lessor (D)
compelling lessor to accept rentals.
HELD – action cannot be considered an action relating to land.

Fernando v. Fernando

(3) Where the contract was entered into – where acceptance too place
- Where there is direct evidence regarding the place of contract – the action must
be filed there
- Prima facie it is where the acceptance took place.
- But can also institute action where the contract is performed

Saudoona v. Abdul Laylett v. Negris Plesspol v. Lady de Soyza

Fernando v. Ammasalempillai

(4) Where the cause of action arose – ordinarily in accident cases

- Every opportunity must be taken to identify where the contract took place &
if there is clear evidence of where the contract took place – action must be
filed there. If not – can file action where the cause of action arose (ie, where
the performance took place)
Haniffa v. Ocean Accident Lowe v. Fernando

s. 33. Every regular action shall, as far as practicable, be so framed as to afford ground for a final
decision upon the subjects in dispute, and so to prevent further litigation concerning them.

s. 39. Every action of regular procedure shall be instituted by presenting a duly stamped written plaint
to the court or to such officer as the court shall appoint in this behalf.

s. 45. Every plaint shall contain a statement of facts setting out the jurisdiction of the court to try and
determine the claim in respect of which the action is brought.

s. 50. If a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power. he shall produce, it in court when
the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be
filed with the plaint.

s. 51. If he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in
support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint.
Page38
ss. 24-30

FILING OF AN ACTION

PROXY
- A litigant can file an action by himself / through an Attorney ; Jinadasa v. Sam Silva
Daniel v. Chandradeva

- s. 27 manner in which an Attorney is appointed:

a) Appointment must be in writing (referred to as the Proxy)
b) Proxy must be signed by litigant (in case of a company by 2 directors / director and the
company secretary – company seal must be placed)
c) Proxy must contain address of Attorney (to serve processes of court)

- When a Proxy is signed a binding contract is made between litigant and Attorney.

- When a Proxy is filed it remains valid until it is revoked / death of Attorney or litigant /
Attorney is removed, suspended (from the bar) , incapacitated.

• Court must be informed of the lawyer’s disability. Court will then suspend the hearing for
30 days. Litigant must retain another layer / appear by himself.
s. 28. If any such registered attorney as in the last preceding section is mentioned shall
die, or be removed or suspended, or otherwise become incapable to act as aforesaid, at
any time before judgment, no further proceeding shall be taken in the action against the
party for whom he appeared until 30 days after notice to appoint another registered
attorney has been given to that party either personally or in such other manner as the
court directs.

- A lawyer cannot appear in court without a Proxy ; Letchaman v Christian

Shakeer v Dharmapala : Lawyer appeared on the summons returnable day & moved for a
day to file Proxy on behalf of D. Court refused application and heard case ex parte.
HELD: Filing of a Proxy is the only manifestation that would confer authority for the
appointment of an Attorney. So an Attorney is powerless to appear in court without a
Proxy.
- After a Proxy is filed, litigant cannot file documents / papers himself
Fernando v. Fernando 96
Fernando v. Fernando 97
Silva v. Kumarathunga
Reid v. Semsudeen

- Seelawathi v. Jayasinghe
Somawathi v. Buwaneswari
Kandiyah v. Weiramuthu
Page38
TRANSFER OF AN ACTION

- Judicature Act s. 46 – CA given power to transfer a case pending any court if CA is convinced that :
a) A fair and impartial trail cannot be held at a particular place
b) Some questions of law of unusual difficulty may arise
c) A view of the place where the offence was committed is required for a
satisfactory trial.
d) Other similar ground, which CA deems expedient.

- s. 10
a) Application for the transfer of action must be made before case is taken up for trial.
b) All parties to the action must be noticed.
c) Application must be made by way of an affidavit and a motion.
d) CA will conduct an inquiry where the parties have a right to be heard.
e) If the CA is convinced that the case should be transferred it must allow the application.

• Test for considering transfer application :

Somawathi v. Danny – Court must consider the convenience of the parties.
Sivasubramanium v. Sivasubramanium – Sufficient grounds must be urged to effect the
transfer under s. 10

Res Judicata
RDL concept of Res Judicata has been extended to the law of civil procedure;
Herath v AG – (Basnayake J) Doctrine of Res Judicata is completely embodied in s.34 , s. 207 &
s.406

s. 33 P must be filed in a way the final decree can be obtained (so that a further action need not be
initiated)

s. 34 Every action shall include the whole of the claim, which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of
the cause of action. But P can withdraw a portion of his claim and obtaining relief pertaining to that
which he withdrew will only be allowed with permission of court.

s. 207 All decrees passed by court will be final between parties except when an appeal is allowed

s. 406 (1) Anytime after the institution of an action if the court is satisfied on the application of P that :
a) the action must fail due to some reason of formal defect. OR
b) there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw from the action or to
abandon part of his claim with liberty bring a fresh action for the subject matter of
Page38

the action or in respect of the part so abandoned.

court can grant permission on such terms as to costs as it thinks fit.
s. 406 (2) If P withdraws from the action / abandons part of his claim without such permission, he
shall be liable for such costs as the court may award and shall be precluded from bringing a
fresh action for the same matter or in respect of the same party.

Eg- P sues D for 100,000 loan and 75,000 interest during trial P withdraws the claim for
75000 interest . If P later wants to file another action claiming the interest. He must obtain
permission of court.

- The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be used by D ; Telaris Hamy v. Novinis Hamy
* D must state to court his intention of using the Doctrine of Res Judicata.
* Burden of proving the Doctrine of Res Judicata is on D.

- Kanapathipillai v. Kanchiah : The following must be proved to establish Res

Judicata ;
i) Decree in the previous trial is final and was made by a competent court having
jurisdiction
ii) Previous decree must relate to the same subject matter.
iii) Previous trial must have been between the same parties.
* D must raise and establish the above 3 facts.

- Kanchiah v. Kandasamy: Doctrine of Res Judicata does not apply to the joinder of claims.

Jayawardena v. Arnolis Hamy

SCOPE OF ACTION AND JOINDER OF PARTIES

s. 35 (1) In an action for the recovery of immovable property or to obtain a declaration of title to
immovable property, no other claim or any cause of action shall be made unless with the
leave of the court except :
a) claims in respect of mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property
claimed.
b) Damages for the breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof
is held or consequential of the trespass which constitutes the cause of action &
c) Claims by mortgagee to enforce any other remedy under the mortgage.
d)

s. 35 (2) No claim by or against any executor, administrator or heir as such shall in any action be
joined with claims by or against him personally unless the last mentioned claims are alleged
to arise with reference to the estate in respect of which the P or D sues or is sued as executor,
administrator or heir or such as he was entitled to or liable for jointly with the deceased
person whom he represents.

- Muthumanike v. Sudumanike : There is no provision in the CPC to strike off an application

when the plaints are improperly joined. But the judge has the discretion of permitting an amendment
to the plaint by allowing a party to separate the cause of actions / join a new claim. (In most cases
Page38

such amendments are subject to costs)

- Edwin Fernando v. Lionel Fernando : Provision of the CPC relating to the joinder of cause of
action & of parties are rules of procedure (not substantive law). Court must adopt a common sense
approach when deciding cases of misjoinder / non-joinder.

Joinder of plaintiffs
- All persons in whom the claim is alleged to exist jointly / severally in respect of the same cause of
action can be joined as plaintiffs.

- Where only some Ps are successful in a claim, the unsuccessful D is entitled to costs from those
parties who have been joined as Ps but did not succeed. (Unless court otherwise directs)

Don Simion Appu v. Marthelis Rosa : Two Ps filed action together for malicious prosecution.
HELD: Cause of action accruing to each were separate and distinct. So the two plaints should not
have been joined. Case failed for misjoinder.

BUT

Dili v. Dili :CPC allows any number of persons having common interests to be joined in one action.
So several co-owners were permitted to be joined in one action against another co-owner who
appropriated for himself the common property.

Suppiah v. Kalianpillai : P was manager of Aerated Water Co. which was a partnership. Sued Ds
(employees) for recovery of money for hawking water. HELD: All partners of the firm should have
been joined in the action. D did not contract with P (manager) on the footing that P was an agent of
the partners. P could not therefore maintain an action.

- s. 13 Where an action has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as the P, or it is
doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the name of the right P. The court may
at any stage of the action if satisfied that the action has been so commenced through a bona
fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to
order any other person / persons with his / their consent to be substituted / added as P / Ps.

- s. 14 Addition of Ds Any person against whom any claim is alleged to exist (either jointly /
severally / alternatively in respect of the same cause of action) can be joined as Ds.
* Jointly / severally / alternatively in respect of the same cause of action – defined in
Fernando v Fernando

- A party objecting to a misjoinder / non-joinder must bring the objection to the notice of the court and
the opposing party at the earliest opportunity.

- London & Lancanshire Fire v. PTO : An objection to misjoinder / non- joinder cannot be raised in
the answer. It should be raised at the earliest opportunity.

- When joining Ds provisions in s. 35 (1) have to be borne in mind.

- CPC Amendment Act 6/1990 – Provides procedure to be followed where the right of action survives
the death of the D.

- Where there are a number of parties having a common interest in bringing an action / joining an
existing action – they may sue / be sued with the permission of court. But notice of joining must be
Page38

given to all parties concerned at the expense of the applicant. (If personal notice isn’t practicable can
have a public advertisement with the permission of court.)
- Consequences of misjoinder / non-joinder
s. 17 No action shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder / non-joinder of parties and court may
in every action deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the
parties before it.

- s. 18 (1) Situations where court is permitted to strike out improperly joined parties
Court can upon the application of a party and on terms as the court sees just strike out a P or a D who
has been improperly joined / add the P or D whose presence is necessary to effectually and
completely try all questions involved in the case / order a P to be a D and a D to be a P.
Hilda Perera v. Somawathie
Morathota Sabeetha Thero v. Amunugama Rathnapala Thero

s. 20. The court may give the conduct of the action to such D as it deems proper.

s. 21. Where a D is added, the plaint shall, unless the court directs otherwise, be amended in such
manner as may be necessary, and a copy of the amended plaint shall be served on the new D and
on the original Ds.

s. 22. All objections for want of parties, or for joinder of parties who have no interest in the action, or
for misjoinder as co-Ps or co-Ds, shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all
cases before the hearing. And any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been
waived by the D.

DEFICIENCY OF STAMPS s. 39
- Plaint cannot be rejected on this ground as it is a matter of revenue.

- Jayawickrema v. Amarasuriya : No objection can be taken by a D in his answer on the ground of

insufficiency of stamps on the plaint.

- Seetha Rajasinghe v. Moureen Seneviratne : Right of a party to maintain a proceeding cannot be

denied on the ground of insufficiency of stamps.

- s. 40 (d) The plaint shall contain a plain & concise statement of circumstances considering each
cause of action and where and when it arose. Statement must be in numbered paragraphs.
If more than one cause of action are set out the statement of circumstances constituting
each cause of action must be numbered and separate.

- Kandappan v. Peters : Plaint did not disclose a statement of the circumstances constituting each
cause of action in duly numbered paragraphs – such deficiency cannot be cured by listing documents
to that effect in the list of documents.

- Sirisena v. Ginige : The words complained of in a defamation action should be set forth in the plaint.

- Omar v. Casineer :Plaint did not allege anything on the face of it, which gave jurisdiction and court
by an oversight omitted to notice the defect and accepted the plaint. HELD: that where attention of
court is drawn by the D to that fact, the court ought to return the plaint to the P to amend and return it.
Page38

- Soyza v. Soyza : HELD: If on the footing of averments in a plaint the claim made therein is clearly
prescribed and where the P as required by s. 44 of the CPC has not stated a ground upon which
 exemption from prescription is claimed, then the claim is liable to be dismissed without evidence
being gone into on consideration of averments in the answer.

- s. 33 : How to frame a regular action (when accepting a plaint)

Every regular action shall as practicable be framed to afford ground for a final decision upon
the subjects in dispute so to prevent further litigation concerning them.

- DFO v. Sirisena :

- s. 46 (1) : Subscription of plaint

Every plaint presented by a registered attorney on behalf of a P, shall be subscribed by
such registered attorney.
* In every other case the plaint shall be subscribed by the P and his signature shall be
verified by the signature of some officer authorised by court.

- s. 47 : Where plaint is presented to a wrong court the plaint shall be retuned to be presented to the
proper court.

- s. 49 : The P shall endorse on the plaint or annex thereto a memorandum of documents.

REQUIREMENTS OF A PLAINT

1. s. 24 Appearances may be by the party in person, his recognized agent or attorney.

2. s. 8 Procedure of action to be ordinarily regular.

3. s. 40 Requisites of plaint.
The plaint shall be distinctly written upon good & suitable paper and shall contain:
a) name of court / date of filing the plaint
b) name / description / place of residence of P
c) name / description / place of residence of D (so far as can be ascertained)
d) The plaint shall contain a plain & concise statement of circumstances considering
each cause of action and where and when it arose. Statement must be in
numbered paragraphs. If more than one cause of action are set out the statement
of circumstances constituting each cause of action must be numbered and
separate.
e) Demand of the relief which P claims.
f) If P has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim – the amount so
set-off / relinquished.

4. s. 45 Jurisdiction of court to be averred.

5. s. 46 (1) Subscription of plaint

Every plaint presented by a registered attorney on behalf of a P, shall be subscribed by
Page38

such registered attorney.

* In every other case the plaint shall be subscribed by the P and his signature shall be
verified by the signature of some officer authorised by court.
6. s. 49 The P shall endorse on the plaint or annex thereto a memorandum of documents.

7. s. 50 P should produce with plaint documents sued upon.

8. s. 51 If P relies on any other documents he should annex a list of such other documents.

9. s. 55 Summons

10. s. 25 Recognized agents

11. s. 27 Appointment of Attorney----fernando v.fernando, daniel v.chandradeva

SUMMONS AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS
- This area was amended by Act no. 14 of 1997

- s. 55 Upon the plaint being filed & copies of concise statements (s. 49) being presented – the court
shall order summons, signed by the Registrar of Court requiring D to answer the plaint on or
before a day to be specified in the summons. (Not later than 3 months from the date of
institution of action)

- s. 59 (1) Summons shall ordinarily be served by registered post.

* summons could have been served personally or in substituted form (the amended s.
59(1) stipulates that summons be served via registered post.)

- s. 59(2)(a) In the case of a corporation or an incorporate body, summons shall be delivered to the
registered office and if office not registered – to the principal place of business.

- s. 59(2)(b) Where D is a public officer – summons to be sent to the Head of the Department. in
which the D is employed. And it is the duty of the Head of the Department to cause such
summons to be served personally on the D.

- s. 59(2)(c) Where court is prima facie satisfied that the D is in the employment of another, the court
shall send summons to that employer. And it is the duty of such employer to cause such
summons to be served personally on the D.
* Where it is a company or corporation – to the secretary , manager or other like officer
of such establishment.

- s. 59(3) Where summons are sent to a person other than the D, the court shall also forward a
duplicate of such summons, and it shall be the duty of the Head of Dept./ employer as the
case may be, to return such duplicate to court with an acknowledgement of the summons
by the D.

- s. 59(4) Where D appears in court in person, on summons being served on him – he shall produce
NIC/passport. Duty of judge to satisfy himself that the person who has appeared before
him is the same person on whom the summons was served.

- s. 60 Provisions regarding personal service of summons.

* Generally courts have held that summons have to be personally served on D and not
handed over to someone else.
Page38

* After amendment –
i. summons can be served by registered post
 ii. personal service can be ordered by courts where it could not be affected by the (i)
above or where D fails to appear in court after having received summons by
registered post.
* Personal service of summons through fiscal / grama niladhari
Exception – Where action has been filed under provisions of the Debt
Recovery Act 2/1990 : summons served through the
fiscal / any other officer authorised by court

Page38
Substituted service of summons

When summons cannot be served personally on D, after exercising due diligence, fiscal / grama niladhari
can affix summons to a conspicuous place where the D resides. In the case of a corporation – usual place
of business.

s. 61 The service of summons substituted by order of court will be as effectual as when it is served
on the D personally.

s. 62 When the service of summons on the D is substituted by the order of court, which is as
effectual as if it has been served personally on the D, court will fix a day not later than 3 months
from the day on which D was first required to answer the plaint, before which he must file an
answer. (amended in 1997)

s. 69 In cases where the court has jurisdiction, summons can be allowed to be served outside SL.
Applications for serving summons outside SL must be made by a motion and must be
supported by evidence (by affidavit / otherwise) showing in what place / country D is / will
probably be found and the grounds on which the application for serving summons is made.

When summons are served to a D living abroad, D must answer such summons on the date
fixed by court which is not later than 6 months.

FILING OF ANSWER

- On the summons returnable day D could

i. File proxy and move for time to file answer OR
ii. File proxy and answer both
- Answer has to be filed by D in every regular action
Except – Where he admits the claim of P. And court would record such admission and
give judgement against D according to admissions so made. (s.72)
* Admission shall be in writing , signed by the D and attested by an attorney.

Requirements of a valid answer

s. 75 The answer shall be distinctly written upon good & suitable paper, properly stamped and
subscribed by D and duly constituted and shall contain the following :
a. name of court / number of case /date of filing answer
b. name of P
c. name / description / place of residence of D
d. statement admitting or denying the averments of the P, setting out matters of fact / law &
the circumstances that D relies for his defence.

- Fernando v. Samarakoon
When factual matters contained in a plaint are dealt with, a mere denial of such matters is not
sufficient.
* Provisions of s. 75 are imperative and wherever a D does not answer the contents of any averments in
a plaint, he is deemed to have admitted such contents.
Page38

s. 76 If D intends to dispute the averment in the plaint as to the jurisdiction of court, he must do so
by a separate & distinct plea expressly traversing such averments.
Joonoos v. Chandraratne
- If jurisdiction is being denied by a D, he must traverse jurisdiction by a separate & distinct plea.

- The wording of s. 76 is unsatisfactory, because it sanctions a plea of bare denial of jurisdiction. It

should encourage the D to subvert litigation into a game of hide and seek. This must not be permitted
especially in view of the public outcry against laws delays. The remedy lies with the legislature.

- What s. 76 requires is that the plea of want of jurisdiction should not be rolled up with other pleas &
averments. It should stand alone.

- “Separate” & “distinct” as they appear in s. 76 signify similar things. Distinct adds to the plea the
quality of being clear and well defined.

- The traversal of jurisdiction must be separate from other pleas and averments. The separateness of the
plea need not necessarily be achieved by taking the plea in a separate paragraph / sub paragraph.

CLAIM IN RECONVENTION
S. 75 entitles D to set up a claim in reconvention

s. 75 e When D sets up a claim in reconvention, Ds answer must contain a plain & concise statement of
facts that constitute the ground of the claim in reconvention. The claim in reconvention set up in
Ds answer has the same effect as a plaint in a cross action. Court can pronounce a final judgement
on the original claim and the cross claim in the same action.

* Claim need not arise from the same set of facts on which Ps claim is based. But the claims of P and
the claim in reconvention of D should be mutually adjustable.

Silva v. Perera : But the claims of P and the claim in reconvention of D should be mutually
adjustable. Court can refuse to allow a claim in reconvention to be put forward if
such claim is likely to cause embarrassment / prejudice & delay the trial of Ps
claim.

Muthunayagam v. Britto :

REJECTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE ANSWER

s. 77 Permits court to reject the answer / return answer for amendment.

* Court can reject / return for amendment answer if ;

a) there is a substantial defect in the answer
b) the answer is argumentative / prolix (using too many words and so boring to listen to /
read – eg: Jayamaha summary)
c) answer contains irrelevant matters as regards the action.

* A time period of less than 1 month is given to return the amended answer – if answer rejected / not
amended within stipulated time ; deemed that D has failed to file answer.
Page38

s. 62 When the service of summons on the D is substituted by the order of court, which is as
effectual as if it had been served personally on the D, court will fix a day not later than 3 months
 from the day on which D was first required to answer the plaint, before which he must file an
answer. (amended in 1997)

s. 69 When summons are served to a D living abroad, D must answer such summons on the date
fixed by court which is not later than 6 months.

s. 79 No pleading after answer shall be filed, except by order of court, on special motion to be made
after due notice to the other side, and before the day appointed for the hearing of the action.
- Court shall as it may think fit order costs / postpone the hearing of the action.
- Such order shall not be made unless court is satisfied on such motion that the real issues
between the parties cannot be conveniently raised without such further pleading.

Exception : If Ds answer contains a claim in reconvention – P is accorded a further

opportunity of filing a replication.
- Such replication shall be confined to matters raised on the claim in reconvention.
- All pleadings after answer shall be subject to the rules prescribed by s. 75 relative to
the form and substance of the answer so far as the same can be made applicable.
- Copies of such pleadings shall be served on the opposite party & his registered attorney.

Cooray v. Jayawardena : A new matter amounting to a new cause of action cannot be introduced
in a replication.

FIXING DAY OF TRIAL

* ss. 80(1), 80(2) & 80(3) have been removed by Amendment No. 79/1988

s. 81 Court has a duty of not appointing more cases for a day than can probably be gotten through on
such day.

Postponements
s. 82 When any case in its turn is called on for hearing, the court may for sufficient cause to be
specified in its written order, direct that the hearing be postponed to another day which shall be
fixed in the order (upon costs / otherwise)

* The court may in its discretion take and deal with a case out of its order in the cause list
on any day for good reason to be adjudicated and recorded by court before entering
upon the case.

s. 91 A (1) Where a day is fixed / time is appointed, for doing any act / taking any proceeding by a
party to the action – the court may, upon the motion of such party if sufficient cause is
shown;
a) fix another day OR
b) enlarge / abridge the time appointed AS IT MAY SEEM PROPER

s. 91 A (2) The day may be refixed / time enlarged although the application for the same is not
Page38

made until the expiration of the day fixed / time appointed.

s. 91 A (3) The court may for sufficient cause,

 a) on the application of the parties
b) on its own motion
advance / postpone / adjourn the trial to any other date (upon costs / otherwise)

s. 91 A (4) Where a date is fixed on or before which

a) an act has to be done by a party to the action
b) a return has to be made to a commission issued by court
the case shall be called in open court on such date for the purpose of making an
appropriate order in that connection.

Varusai v. Weerasekeram : Where court rejects an application for a postponement, counsel should be
prepared to carry on the case in court on that day. BUT the counsel can excuse himself if he had been
retained only to ask for a postponement on that day.

Consequences that would arise when

a party to a civil suit fails to appear / plead in the course of a civil action

Default of the D

- s. 84 The court shall proceed to hear the case ex parte forthwith / on such other day as the
court may fix,
if;
i) D fails to file answer;
a) on or before the day fixed for filing of answer OR
b) on or before the day fixed for the subsequent filing of answer
OR
ii) Having filed answer – D fails to appear on the day fixed for hearing

AND
If court is satisfied that D
i) has been duly served with summons
ii) has received due notice of the day
a) fixed for the subsequent filing of answer
b) fixed for the hearing of the action
iii) the P is present

** Exception – s. 61 as amended by Act No. 14/1997 : Order for ex parte trial under s. 84 cannot be
made if the D fails to appear in court after being served summons by registered post.
s. 60 (1) requires summons to be served personally.

- Seneviratne v. Dharmaratn : The evidence led at an ex parte trial, must be evidence that is legally
admissible. In the case of evidence being led contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Ordinance,
the DC cannot give judgement in favour of the P.

- Sirimavo Bandaranaike v. Times of Ceylon Ltd. [1995] 1 SLR 22

Page38
Applications to vacate (set-aside) an ex parte decree

s. 86 (2) Where within 14 days of the service of the decree entered against him for default, D with
notice to P, makes application to and thereafter satisfies court that he had reasonable grounds
for such default ;
a) Court shall set aside judgement and decree
b) Permit D to proceed with his defence as from the stage of default
c) Upon such terms as to costs / otherwise as to the court shall appear fit

s. 86 (2A) Amended by Act 53/1980

Prior to entering of judgement against D for default, if P consents, the court may set
aside any order made on the basis of Ds default & permit him to proceed with his
defence as from the stage of default.(upon costs / otherwise)

** Every such application shall be made by petition supported by affidavit **

- Sirimavo Bandaranaike v. Times of Ceylon Ltd. [1995] 1 SLR 22

** Generally after judgement is given by a DC judge, he cannot act further regarding that same case
[Functus Officio]
Exception : s. 86 An ex parte judgement can be set aside only if
a) there is a mistake regarding the procedure of the case OR
b) the default of D was due to unavoidable circumstances

Non appearance of the P

s. 87 (1) Where P or P & D both make default in appearing on the day fixed for trail – court shall
dismiss Ps action.

s. 87 (2) Where an action has been dismissed under s. 87 – P shall be precluded from bringing in
a fresh action in respect of the same cause of action.

s. 87 (3) P may apply within a reasonable period of time from the date of dismissal, to have the
dismissal set aside by way of petition supported by affidavit.

If on hearing of such application, of which the D is given notice of, court is satisfied that
there were reasonable grounds for the non appearance of the P – court shall;
a) make order setting aside the dismissal (upon costs / otherwise)
b) appoint a day for proceeding with the action as from the stage at which the
dismissal for default was made.

s. 88 (1) No appeal lies against any judgement entered upon default.

s. 87 (2) s. 87 (3) NOT IN NOTE

- Sirimavo Bandaranaike v. Times of Ceylon Ltd. : HELD: The revisionary jurisdiction of the CA
under Art. 138 extends to revising or varying an ex parte judgement entered upon the default of D on
the grounds of manifest error / perversity or the like.
Page38

Once an ex parte decree is entered by the DC, it is possible for the affected D to revise the ex parte
judgement without following the procedure laid down under s. 86 (2) of the CPC, if the order is
attacked on manifest error, lack of jurisdiction and the like.
Motions
s. 91 * Every application made to court in the course of an action or incidental thereto (and not
a step in a regular procedure)
* shall be made by motion
* by applicant in person / his counsel / registered attorney
* and a memorandum of such motion shall at the same time be delivered to court.

s. 91 A General powers of a DC in granting postponements / adjournments and extensions of

time regarding the doing of an act / taking any proceeding upon the motion of such
party.

The Journal

s. 92 With the institution of an action the court shall commence a journal, in which shall be
minuted, as they occur, all the events in the course of the action.
i.e. – the original application / every subsequent step, proceeding & order. Each minute shall be
signed & dated by the judge and the journal so kept shall be the principal record of the action.

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS Chapter 15

- The principles of the law relating to amendment of pleadings are set out in s. 93 CPC.

- The original s. 93 was amended by Act No. 79/1988 & 9/1991

Prior to the amendments a DC exercised a very wide discretionary power in dealing with an
application for amendment of pleadings.

- s. 93 (1) As amended by Act No. 9/1991

* Upon application made to court
* before the day first fixed for trial of the action
* in the presence of / after reasonable notice to all the parties to the action
** court shall have full power in amending in its discretion all pleadings in the action by
way of addition / alteration / omission .

- s. 93 (2) * On or after the day first fixed for trial and

* before the final judgement
** no application for the amendment of any pleadings shall be allowed
** unless court is satisfied that grave and irremediable injustice will be caused if
such amendment is not permitted and (no other ground)
** the party so applying has not been guilty of l****

- s. 93 (3) All application for amendment under ss. 93(1) & 93(2) shall be upon such terms as
to costs & postponement / otherwise as the court may think fit.
Page38

- s. 93 (4) * The additions / alterations / omissions shall be clearly made on the face of the
pleading affected by the order.
 * If such cannot be conveniently done, a fair copy of the pleading as altered shall
be appended in the record of the action to the pleading amended.
* Every such addition / alteration / omission shall be signed by the judge.

Lebbe v. Sandanam : A divisional bench considered the rules applicable in the case of amendment of
pleadings and stated some instances where the court should not allow an amendment.
eg: - * If the amendment sets up a new case.
* An amendment which prejudices the rights of the opposing party.

Interrogatories
- ss. 94 ~ 100 Deal with the service of by one party on another.

- The concept of interrogatories is a concept that we have inherited from the EL

- Kennedy v. Dodson : Purpose of interrogatories – “ to obtain from the party interrogated,

admissions to the facts which are necessary for the party interrogating to prove in order to
establish his case.

- Wijesekere v. Eastern Bank Ltd. : The above observations were followed.

- Service of interrogatories is an optional step, which is available to a litigant who desires to obtain
from the party being interrogated, admissions of fact which otherwise the party interrogating would
have to establish at the stage of the trial.

- s. 94 (1) * Any party may at any time before hearing

by leave of court to be obtained ex parte
deliver through court interrogatories in writing
for the examination of the opposite party.

* Where there are several opposite parties,

deliver interrogatories to any one or more of such parties,
with a footnote stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is
required to answer.
Provided
* No party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same person
without the permission of court.

* No D shall deliver interrogatories for the examination of P

unless such D has tendered his answer
and such answer has been received and placed on the record.

- Interrogatories need to be relevant to the case.

- Goonewardhana v. Dunuwille

- s. 95 * Interrogatories shall be served

a) on the registered attorney (if any) of the party interrogated
OR
Page38

b) in the manner provided for the service of summons (such provisions shall as far
as may be practicable be applied to the service of interrogatories)
- s. 96 The court in adjusting the costs of the action,
shall at the instance of any party
inquire / cause inquiry to be made on the propriety of delivering such interrogatories .

If court thinks that such have been delivered unreasonably / vexatiously / at improper length
– the costs occasioned by the interrogatories / answers thereto ; shall be borne by the party at
fault.

- s. 97 Where interrogatories are to be served upon a body corporate / company (incorporate

or not) / any other body of persons empowered by law to sue or be sued (in its own
name or in the name of an officer / other person) – can apply to court for an order to
deliver interrogatories to any member / officer of such corporation / company /
body.

- s. 98 Any party called upon to answer an interrogatory may refuse to do so on the grounds
that ;
a) it is scandalous / irrelevant
b) it is not put bona fide for the purposes of the action
c) that the answer will tend to criminate himself
d) the matter inquired after is not sufficiently material at that stage of the action
e) OR any other like ground

- s. 99 Interrogatories shall be answered by affidavit to be filed in court within 10 days from the
service thereof OR within such further time as the court may allow.

- s. 100 If any person interrogated omits or refuses to answer / answers insufficiently ;

party interrogating may apply to court for an order requiring him to answer / answer
further as the case may be. (answer may be by affidavit / viva voce examination, as court
directs)

But court shall not require an answer to an interrogatory which in its opinion need not
have been answered under s. 98.

* The CPC is silent regarding the procedure to be followed by an interrogating party in

making an application under s. 100.

- Ceylon Insurance Co. v. Sudu Banda : [Maniccavasagar J.] “It is obvious that the opinion of the
court on the above matter, should be after hearing both sides. The party sought to be interrogated
should therefore have notice of the application under s. 100 in order to enable him to show cause, if
any, against an adverse order made against him.”

- Before any order is made under s. 100, it is imperative that the party interrogated is given notice of
the application for an order under s. 100 made by the party interrogating.

- Chetty v. Ragsoobhoy : The failure to answer interrogatories does not make a D liable to have his
defence cut off. It is only a failure to comply with an order made by s. 100 that makes a D liable to
face the same consequences as in the case of an ex parte trail.
Page38
Admitting the genuineness of documents

- This is an optional step that a party can take up.

- Mechanism is activated by any party to a suit under s. 101

- s. 101 (1) * Either party may by a notice issued by order of court

- to be obtained by motion ex parte
- within a reasonable time not less than 10 days before the hearing
require the other party to admit the genuineness of any document material to the
action.

- s. 101 (2) The admission shall also be - made in writing

signed by the other party / his registered attorney
& filed in court

- s. 101 (3) If such notice is not given; the costs of proving such document shall not be allowed
unless the court otherwise orders.

- s. 101 (4) If such notice is not complied with within 4 days after its being served
& court thinks it reasonable that the admission should have been made
- The party refusing shall bear the expenses of proving such document
(whatever may be the result of the action)

Discovery of documents

- s. 102 Order of production of documents

At any time during the pendency of an action,
court can either on its own / on the application of a party
order the production by any party, by way of affidavit
* all documents that are in his possession / power & which are relevant to any
matter in question in such action / proceeding
&
deal with such documents when produced in such manner as appears just.

- This is a mechanism that could be used by one party to discover and inspect documents of the other
party.

- This method is inherited from the EL

s. 103 - Production of documents

While a case is pending, court can order a party to produce to court any document in his possession /
power which relates to any in question in the proceeding as the court thinks right.
Page38

When the documents are so produced, court can deal with the document in a manner which it thinks to be
just.
 • When an order for the production of documents is made – a party can object to the production
of the document by way of an affidavit. Affidavit must contain the grounds for the objection

• s. 103 A – Code of Civil Procedure (Amm) Act 1977

(1) Where the state a party to civil proceedings : the state may also be required to make
discovery & produce documents before court
(2) BUT State has a right to withhold a document if its production would result in the public
interest being adversely affected.

s. 104 – Notice to produce documents for inspection

A party can get a court order for notice to be issued to the other party to produce a document which is
referred to in that party’s pleadings / affidavits, so that it can be inspected & copied.
The application can be made before / at the hearing. The court order must be applied for by motion.
• Amarasekara v. Palaniappu – If the document for the production of which a notice has been
issued is a document which would only support the claim of the party referring to it in the
pleadings / affidavit – no obligation to produce the document.

s. 105 – Party receiving notice to specify time & place of production of documents
The party who receives the notice must deliver to the party a notice which states a time at which the
documents may be inspected. The place of production of document could be at his registered attorney’s
office or at any other convenient place.
If he objects to the production of any document he must give the grounds for such objection The date of
production of documents for inspection must be within 3 days of the date of delivery of the notice to the
other party.
The notice must be sent to the other party within 10 days of the receipt of the notice in s. 104.

s. 106 – Order for inspection made by court

If a person who has been served with a s. 104 notice,
(a) fails to serve a s. 105 notice within 10 days
(b) objects to allowing inspection
(c) names an inconvenient place for inspection
the party who issued the s. 104 notice may apply to court for an order of inspection.

• The application must be supported by an affidavit (except where the documents in question
are referred to in the other party’s pleading / affidavit)
The affidavit must contain
(i) what documents are sought to be inspected
(ii) that the he is entitled to inspect such documents
(iii) that the other party is in possession / power of the documents
; s. 107

s. 109 – Consequences of not complying with a s. 106 order

If he is a P – his action will be dismissed for want of prosecution

Page38

If he is a D – his defence will be struck out & will be in the same position as if he had not
appeared and filed answer (ex parte)
He will also be guilty of contempt of court (if the order has been personally served on him)

Pre-trial steps relating to documents ss. 111 – 120

s. 111 – Parties must be ready with all the documentary evidence relating to the case that is in their
possession / power on which they intend to rely & which has not already been filed in court or
which the court has ordered before the hearing to be produced in court.
If any document is in the possession of the opponent, the party must comply with the provisions
of s. 66 Evidence Ordinance
(that secondary evidence of the contents of a document shall not be given unless the party
proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given notice to the party in whose
possession / power the document is).

s. 112 - Documentary evidence which is in the possession / power of a party which should have been
produced in court but which has not been produced will not be received by court at a
subsequent stage of the proceedings.
(Except where good cause is shown for the non-production)

s. 114 - (1) A document will not be placed on record unless it is proved / admitted in
accordance with the law of evidence.
(2) Once a document is proved / admitted, it has to be endorsed with a marking that is
sufficient to identify it. The document must then be filed as part of the record.
(3) Documents which are not proved / admitted must be returned to the parties.
* But court has power, notwithstanding s. 114 (3) to direct a document to be impounded &
kept in custody of a court official if it thinks there is a sufficient reason for doing so. (for
so long as court thinks fit) ; s. 115

WITNESSES & DOCUMENTS Chapter 17

Filing a list of witnesses & documents

– duty of the registered attorney

Object of filing a list of witnesses & documents – preventing unwanted documents being produced and
unnecessary witnesses from being summoned to prove a point.

s. 121 – Parties to an action must file a list of witnesses & a list of documents relied
upon by the party at the trial at least 15 days before the date fixed for the
trial of an action. (notice of the list must be given to the opposite party)
* s. 175 – No witness can be called or document be produced unless the name of witness
/ document is included in the list of witnesses / documents.
Page38

- A witness whose name is not included in the list of witnesses can by

summoned only in special circumstances with the leave of court
 Kandiah v. Wisvanathan
Leave must be granted to produce an unlisted document where
(a) it is in the interest of justice to do so
(b) it is necessary for the ascertainment of the truth
(c) there is no doubt about the authenticity of the document (eg. certified copies of
public documents / records of judicial proceedings)
(d) sufficient reasons are adduced for the failure to list the document (eg. party was
ignorant of its existence)

Asilin Nona v. Wilbert Silva – burden of proving the existence of a “special

circumstance” is on the party seeking to call the witness.

Girantha v. Maria
When a judge uses his discretion to permit a witness whose name is not in the list of
witnesses from giving evidence – the paramount consideration for the judge is the
ascertainment of the truth. No to see a litigant being placed at an advantage.

- A party to an action can give evidence even if his name does not appear in
the list of witnesses.

- Documents produced by the opposite party to cross-examine witnesses or

handed to the witness to refresh memory need not be listed.

* Tikiri Banda v. Loku Menika – A judgment entered in favour of a party by making the
judge to believe that a witness’s name has been included in the list of witnesses makes
such witness’s evidence illegal. His evidence could not form the basis of the judgment.

* A person who is summoned to produce a document can produce the document through
another person or his representative.

* A party can amend list of witnesses any time before the 15 days prior to the trial
date.

Subramaniam v. Ceylon Paper Sacks – P did not indicate to court the material they intended to adduce
through the witness. D also had no notice of the nature of the evidence intended to be adduced through
the witness.
Held – Trial judge’s decision to refuse to permit the witness to be called is correct.

Munaf v. Yusuf – Where the judge decided that D has not sought to explain the delay in filing the list of
witnesses and that it would cause prejudice to P if a witness is listed at this stage of the trial (after P has
closed his case) – it is correct for the judge to refuse to permit the evidence of the witness.

Mercantile Credit v. Sisira Kumara – ss. 121 & 175 are applicable only to trials of actions by way of
regular procedure.

ss. 122 – 142 deals with the securing of the attendance of witnesses & the consequences of a failure to
attend court on the part of a witness.
Page38
 Chapter 18 - Adjournments
s. 143 – (1) Court may grant time to the parties & from time to time adjourn the hearing of the
action if sufficient cause is shown to exist.
 But no adjournment for a period of over 6 weeks may be granted except in
exceptional circumstances.
 The reasons for an adjournment must be recorded.

(2) Court must fix a day for the further hearing of the action. Court can make an order which
it thinks fit in respect of costs occasioned by the adjournment.
 But when the hearing of the action has begun, the hearing must be continued
from day to day until all witnesses have been examined
(unless an adjournment is necessary for reasons to be recorded and signed by the
Judge)

Silva v. Silva – there is nothing in law which empowers court to dismiss an action for
non-payment of costs.

Weerasinghe v. Barlis – When payment of costs before the next trial date is ordered,
payment of costs of the next trial date will be sufficient.
* If a D has agreed to the payment of costs before next trial date, failure
on his part to pay costs will result in judgment being entered in P’s
favour ; Punchi Nona v. Peiris
But if D has not consented to pay costs, judge has no jurisdiction to give
judgment for P merely because D has failed to pay costs before next
trial date ; Perera v. Nawange

s. 144 - If a party fails to appear on the day to which the hearing of the action is
adjourned – court can dispose of action as directed by Chapter 12 / make any
other order it thinks fit.

s. 145 - If a party to an action, to whom time has been granted, fails to perform an act
for which time had been allowed – court can still proceed to decide the action.

Chapter 19 - The Trial

Determining the issues

s. 146 - (1) If parties are agreed as to the question of fact / law to be decided between them, parties can
state that in the form of an issue and court must proceed to determine it.

(2) If parties are not agreed as to the question of fact / law to be decided by court, court must
ascertain upon what material propositions of fact / law the parties are at variance. Court
must then proceed to record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to
Page38

the court to depend.

 [when ascertaining the material propositions of fact/law – court can examine the
parties & can refer to
(a) allegations made in plaint / in answer to interrogatories
(b) contents of documents produced by parties ]

(3) No need to frame & record issues when D makes no defence.

• Judge has the discretion to allow fresh issues to be formulated after the case has commenced
if it is in the interest of justice.
s. 149 – Court may amend the issues / frame additional issues on such terms
as it thinks fit at any time before passing a decree.
BUT
An application seeking to raise a new issue by P after he has closed his case and where the
issue is unsupported by the necessary evidence & is not pleaded must not be allowed ;
Suppiah v. Kanagaratnam

• Issues are not restricted to pleadings ; AG v. Smith & Silva v. Obeysekara

Pleadings can be amended if issues which do not strictly arise from the pleadings are
permitted to be framed ; Martin v. Thenuwara
Court cannot order costs for belatedly suggesting an issue which arises on the pleadings ;
Melis v. Adonsia
BUT
When recording an issue which is not included in a pleading – court must consider
(a) whether recording the issue would change the nature of the case
(if it does – must not record)
(b) whether the other party is put in a disadvantageous position by allowing the new issue to
be recorded. Issue must not be produced so as to surprise the other party. (Other party can
be given time to consider the issue if they request)

• Municipal Council of Jaffna v. Dodwell – s. 146 does not permit court to frame issues upon
an unpleaded cause of action if that cause of action has become prescribed by that time.

• If no issue is settled, parties must be held not have been at issue on those facts and no burden
on parties to prove them ; Appuhamy v. Kirahenaya

• Pathmawathie v. Jayasekara – Though in practice Counsel for P & D do suggest the issues,
it is the prime responsibility of the Judge to frame issues because it is ultimately the Judge
who should make a finding, and without a clear understanding of the dispute and the issues
that he has to determine it would be a dangerous exercise for the Judge to embark upon.

• Once an issue is framed, court has no power to strike it out on the motion of either party. The
issue must be retained to be eventually decided ; Fernando v. Ramanathan.

The Importance of Framing Issues

(1) Determines what facts need to be proved.

(2) Helps to determine what evidence should be lead & what documents should be produced since
both sides are alive to the questions that are about to be argued.
Page38

(3) Prevents unnecessary evidence from being lead

 Uvais v. Punyawathie – Absence of an agreement to pay an increased rent was not a fact on
which D relied for his defence, nor a proposition on which parties were at variance. So evidence
on that matter is prohibited for D & superfluous for P

(4) It is the duty of the judge to come to the right decision regarding the particular issues. Even in
appeal, the appellate court must decide the case based on the issues in question.
Pathmawathie v. Jayasekara – Our law does not permit the judge the freedom of the wild ass to
go on a voyage of discovery and make a finding as he pleases. He must decide the case on the
issues raised.

s. 147 – When issues of law & of fact arise in the same action, and the court feels that the
case may be disposed of on issues of law alone, court must try issues of law first.
Court can postpone the settlement of issues of fact until the issues of law have
been determined.
(Pure issues of law – also called preliminary issues)

Cathiravelu v. Dadabhoy – Court has power to dismiss an action on an issue of law without
any evidence or admission being recorded (ie, without hearing the parties).

Pure Beverages v. Fernando – If an issue of law arises in relation to a fact about which the
parties are at variance – the issue of law must not be tried first as a preliminary issue.

s. 148 – If court is of opinion that issues cannot be correctly framed without examining a
witness who is not before court / inspecting a document that has not been
produced – court can adjourn the framing of issues & can compel the attendance
of the witness / production of the document.

s. 149 – Court can amend issues / frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit at any
time before passing decree

Hameed v. Cassim – s. 149 does not preclude a DJ from framing a new issue after
the parties have closed their respective cases & judgment is read out in open court.
It is not necessary that the new issue should arise on the pleadings. A new issue could
be framed on the evidence led by the parties orally / in any other form of documents.
Only restriction – DJ in framing a new issue should act in the interests of justice (ie,
to ensure that the correct decision is reached in the case)

Admissions
Mariammai v. Pethrupillai – If a party makes an admission for whatever reason, he must stand by it. It
is impossible for him to argue a point on appeal which he had formally given up at the trial.

BUT
Uvais v. Punyawathie – It is sometimes permissible to withdraw admissions on questions of law but
admissions on questions of fact cannot be withdrawn.
Page38

Perera v. Samarakoon – An erroneous admission of counsel on a point of law has no effect and does
not preclude the party from claiming his legal rights in appeal.
Right to begin
s. 150 – The party having the right to begin must state his case giving the substance of the facts
which he proposes to establish.
• General rule – P has the right to begin
BUT
Where claim of P is admitted by D but D claims that on a question of law / based on
additional facts P has not right to relief – then D has right to begin.

• A party can only lead evidence that is relevant to the pleadings

Hildon v. Munaweera – All facts & evidence taken as a whole should be relevant to
the pleadings of case.

Leading Evidence

• After stating the case under s. 150 – party having right to begin produces his evidence
to establish his claim

• When questioning a W questions

(a) must be simple
(b) must be limited to the issues / debatable facts
(c) must be in chronological order & in form of narrative
(d) must be directly about what the W observed
(e) must not be leading / suggestive ; s. 142 EO
(f) must not be questions of opinion (unless W is an expert)
(g) W must not be asked to narrate the incident (this can lead to W coming with a
prepared speech)
(h) Hearsay evidence must not be lead (except for establishing that a statement had
been made)

• After Examination in chief is over – other party can cross-examine W ; s. 152

(Leading questions can be asked in the course of XX)

• After cross-examining – W can be re-examined ; s. 153

(New evidence cannot be lead during re-examination)

• Tender of documents in evidence ; s. 154

(1) A document which a party intends to use as evidence against the other
must be formally tendered to the other party when the contents of the
Page38

documents are spoken of by a witness for the first time during the course
of proceedings
 (2) Court must not allow the indiscriminate admission of an entire body of
proceedings of another court action

(3) A document that is admitted must be marked with a distinguishing mark.

- Court must admit a document in evidence if

a. the other party does not object to it being received in evidence
b. the document is not forbidden form being received in evidence by law
- If other party objects to a document being tendered – court must decide
(a) whether document is authentic
(b) if document is authentic does it constitute legally admissible evidence against
the party who is sought to be affected by it

If both questions are in the affirmative – court must admit document

If one of the question are answered in the negative – court must refuse document

- Whether a document is admitted or not – must be marked as soon as W makes a

statement regarding it. (If not – must be marked at least when court decides
whether to admit doc or not)

- If document is not prepared by W – must identify the handwriting / signature &

the purpose & time at which it was prepared (these must be given in evidence)

- Before a W is allowed to identify a doc – W must be made to state the grounds of

his knowledge regarding the doc ; s. 155

- Before doc is shown to W - W must be examined by the party proposing to prove

the document on the grounds of his knowledge regarding doc. Other party must be
allowed to cross-examine W ; s. 156

- If document was prepared by an illiterate person – must prove that at the time he
prepared doc by putting his mark etc. – he understood the contents of the doc
; s. 160

• When the party beginning case has concluded his case – the other party can prove his
case in a like manner

• Where there are several issues & the burden of proving some issues lie with P &
others lie with D – the party beginning proceedings can produce evidence on the
issues / reserve it by way of answer ; s. 163

Subramanium v. Ceylon Paper Sack – Question whether a party who begin a case
should be permitted to call evidence in rebuttal of the case of the other party has to be
Page38

decided primarily in relation to the proceedings of each case. Rebuttal of the case of
other party is permitted where
 (a) Where there are several issues in the case & the burden of proving only some
of them lie upon the party beginning & of the others on the opposing party.
Here s. 163 CPC provides that the party beginning can, at his option adduce
evidence in chief on the issues where the burden lay on the opposing party.

Here there is an element of a right in the party

s
(b) Where court can, in any event, in the interests of justice, permit the party
beginning to lead evidence in rebuttal

Here it is entirely at the discretion of court

s. 163 embraces a situation where the respective issues are distinct & are
discernible as such. It does not readily apply in a situation where the respective
issues overlap / where the issues raised by the opposing party are counter /
negative of the issues raised by the party beginning. In such a situation, the party
beginning cannot split his case into 2 & prelent part EIC & seek to confirm that
part by taking a second bite of the same cherry under the cover of rebuttal.

• s. 164 – Court can question a witness at any time

• s. 165 – Court can recall any witness whose evidence has been concluded

• s. 169 – Evidence of every W must be taken down in writing by the judge / in his
presence. Evidence must be taken down ordinarily in the form of a narrative

• s. 170 – Court can ask specific questions from a W & the answers to such questions
must be recorded in the form of question & answer

• s. 175 – A witness cannot be called / a document cannot be produced unless

included in the list of witnesses / document

• s. 176 – Court can forbid indecent / scandalous questions

• s. 177 – Court can forbid insulting questions

• Evidence de bene esse ; s. 178

- Normally evidence is given after the commencement of trial. But
witness’ evidence can be recorded prior to commencement of
trial because W will not be present when trial starts. (eg. if W is
about to leave jurisdiction of court)

- Court can record evidence on its own motion / on application of a

party ; s. 178
Page38

- Court can record evidence bene esse any time after the
institution of an action
; s. 178

- Where evidence is not recorded immediately – court must notify

all parties to the case the date on which the recording of
evidence would take place.

- But when evidence bene esse is read – if there is opportunity for W to be present
then evidence of witness must be lead again

- Chandrasekara v. Salgado – Recording of evidence under s. 178 cannot be done

without notice to the other party. Other party has a right to cross-examine witness

- Evidence taken under s. 178 can be read at the hearing (if W cannot then be
produced)

• Evidence on affidavit / commission ; s. 179

- Court can order that a particular fact be proved by affidavit / by depositions
taken on commission (instead of by the testimony of a witness)

- Affidavit = A statement / declaration made under oath / affirmation by a

person who is aware of the facts stated therein ; s. 181
 Affidavit must be confined to the statement of facts which declarant is
able to testify with his knowledge & observation (except on interlocutory
applications in which statements of his belief may be admitted provided
there is reasonable grounds for the belief set out in the affidavit)

- The affidavit / commission can be read at the hearing but if court feels that a
party bona fide wants to cross-examine a W – Testimony of W must be orally
recorded.

- Ratnayake v. Karunawathie – Under s. 179 court can order that a particular

fact be proved by affidavit instead of viva voce testimony at any time for
sufficient reason

- s. 180 – If the order has been made for proof of facts by affidavit – court can
nevertheless at the instance of either party – order the attendance of the
declarant / deponent at the hearing of the action for viva voce examination if
he is in SL & can be produced.

- After an order for the affidavit to be admitted has been made – if the necessity
arises at a later stage for XX witness & an application has been made – court
can still order that W gives oral testimony even though an order under s. 179
had previously been made.
Page38

- The fact that the other party consents does not relieve court of duty of
satisfying itself that it can depart from the procedure laid down
s. 183 Who may administer oaths (affidavit)

a. Any court / magistrate / JP

b. A commissioner for oaths
c. Any person qualified to administer an oath according to the law of the country in
which the affidavit is sworn. (1988 Amd)

s. 183 A When may another make affidavits in place of the party.

a) where the AG is a party to the action – any officer of the state
b) where a corporation / board / public body / company is a party – Any
secretary / director / principal officer.
c) Where a party is absent from SL – his registered attorney
d) Where the party is unable to make the affidavit due to lack of personal
knowledge / bodily or mental infirmity – any recognized agent of such party.

* The person who makes the affidavit in place of the party to the action must
have personal knowledge of the facts.

s. 183 B Punishment for wilfully making a false statement made under s. 183 A – either
contempt of court / can be tried under the penal code for the offence of giving false
evidence, where such statement is on oath or affirmation.

s. 182 Ensures that all requirements are satisfied when making an affidavit.
- A petition cannot be converted to an affidavit by a verifying clause that the affirmations
in the petition are true

Rules relating to affidavits ss. 437 ~ 440

s. 437 When evidence on affidavit is admitted , the affidavit maybe sworn / affirmed to by the
person making the statement embodied in the affidavit. And the fact that the affidavit bears
on its face, the name of the court, the number of the action, and the names of the parties,
shall be sufficient authority to such court /JP / C for O to administer the oath /
affirmation.

Pakir Moohidin v. Mohamadu Cassim : An affidavit sworn in by the D before his own attorney is not
according to the practice of the English court , admissible in evidence and such practice should be
followed here.

s. 438 Every affidavit must be signed by the declarant in the presence of the court / JP / C for O

s. 439 If the declarant is blind / illiterate / cannot understand writing in English – affidavit must be
read over and interpreted to him in the presence of court /JP / C for O.
And the Jurath must so explain that it was so interpreted and that his mark / signature was put
in the presence of court /JP / C for O.
Page38

Simon Singho v. GA Western Province : The absence of a Jurath in an affidavit where the declarant is
unable to understand in writing the English language
s. 440 Alteration of affidavit –
Every affidavit must be fairly written and must exhibit no erasures / blotting /blanks and if any alterations
needs to be made in writing. Before it is sworn or affirmed to every excision of a word/ letter/ figure
shall be made by drawing a line though it as to leave the word/ letters/ figure still legible. And every
added word/ letter /figure shall be added by inter lineation, not by superposition or alteration and
every excision and interlineations shall be initialled by the judge / JP / C for O /the person qualified
before whom the affidavit is affirmed or sworn.

JUDGEMENT

s. 184 (1) Upon the evidence recorded / upon admitted facts in pleadings & after the parties have
been heard, judgement must be pronounced in open court at once / on a future day of
which the parties must be given notice of at the end of the trial.
On the day fixed for the judgement if court is not prepared to give judgement another
future day maybe fixed and announced to the parties ; s. 184 (2)

* In civil proceedings a time limit has not been given for the pronouncement of
judgement, but it is reasonable to expect the judgement to be delivered within a
reasonable time from the end of the trial.

Kulatunga v. Samarasinghe : A judgement was delivered 2 years and 4 months after

the end of the trial. The case depended on oral evidence.
HELD: The impression created by the witnesses on the judge would have faded away
after such a long delay. So the advantage of such impressions would be lost and the
judges recollections of the fine points of the case would have faded away by the time he
wrote the judgement.

David v. Choksy : It is mandatory that at the end of the trial that notice is given to
parties by the court, if the judgement is to be delivered on a future day. There is no duty
on the parties to ascertain for themselves the next date of judgement if the date has not
been fixed in open court. The duty on the court to notice parties of the date of delivery
of judgement is greater when there is a delay of 2 years and 8 months, and the case has
not been called for a period of 2 years. In such circumstances it would be even
difficult for the attorney at law to ascertain the actual date of judgement.

s. 185 A judge may pronounce a judgement written by his predecessor which has not been
pronounced.

Saravanamuttu v Saravanamuttu : A judgement written by a judge who is functus officio on

the day on which he signs is invalid and cannot be pronounced by his predecessor.

Edwin v. de Silva: A judgement written and signed by a judge at a time when he had no
jurisdiction to do so, will not satisfy s. 185 and cannot be regarded as a valid judgement
when pronounced by his successor.
Page38

s. 186 The judgement must be in writing and must be signed by the judge in open court at the time
of pronouncing it.
s. 187 The judgement must contain:
a) a concise statement of the case
b) the points for determination
c) the decision of the court on those points
d) opinions of the assessors if any must be prefixed by the assessors.

Warnakula v. Ramani Jayawardene : Bare answers to issues without reasons are not in
compliance with the requirements of s. 187. The evidence germane to each issue must be
reviewed or examined. The judge must evaluate and consider the totality of the evidence.
Giving a short summary of the evidence of the parties & witnesses and stating that he
prefers to accept the evidence of one party without giving reasons is insufficient.
(Jayamaha is insufficient)

DECREE
s. 188
* After pronouncing the judgment the court is required to draw up a formal decree bearing the same
date in form no:1 of the First Schedule.

* The decree must specify in precise words,

(a) the order made by the judgment regarding the relief granted or other determination of the
action
(b) parties & in which proportions the costs are to be paid

The decree must bear the date of the judgment & also it should be announced without delay.

King v. Harvey – a decree is merely formal expression of an adjudication by a civil court. It is

not necessary that it should be drawn up and signed by the same judge who pronounces the
judgment. It can be done by any judge of the court.

s. 189
s. 189 (1) - Amendment of a decree

The court may at any time either on its own motion / on that of any other parties, correct any clerical /
arithmetical mistake in any judgment or any error arising therein from an accidental slip or omission
or make any amendment which is necessary to bring the decree in conformity with the judgment.

s. 189 (2) - Reasonable notice of any proposed amendment must be given to the parties.

Ramasamy Pulle v. De Silva – once a judgment is delivered, such judgment cannot be vacated
or altered except in the manner provided for in this section.

Parsons v. Abdul Cader – where judgment is entered in a case against a person under a wrong
name, the court has inherent power to substitute the right name in the caption of the plaint even
after the decree.

Mohammed Iqbal v. Mohammed Sally

* s. 189 is exhaustive of the situations in which a decree may be amended
* This section cannot be invoked by a court for correcting mistakes of its own in law /
Page38

otherwise.
* A judge cannot reconsider / vary his judgment after delivery except as provided by
s. 189
 * Ranaraja J “The power of court under s. 189 is to be exercised entirely at the discretion of
court & the discretion should be exercised sparingly and in general to avoid a miscarriage
of justice. If not, the principle of finality of judgment & decree will have no meaning”.
At what rate may interest on money be decreed s. 192

s. 192 (1) - When action is for a sum of money, court can order
(a) according to the rate agreed on by the parties in the instrument
(b) if no such instrument exists – at the legal rate, to be paid, on the principle sum

* Interest will be calculated from the date of action to the date of decree + any interest
accrued on the principle sum for any period prior to the institution of the action.

* Court can also order further interest at the legal rate on the aggregate sum so
calculated from the date of the decree until the date of payment (as until a date fixed
by the court)
If the decree is silent on further interest between date of decree & date of payment –
deemed that court has refused to allow such interest. A separate action will no lie for
such interest.

Obeysekara v. Fonseka – Where the action is based on an promissory note which

represents arrears of interest due on an bond, P cannot recover interest on the money due
on the note because this would amount to compound interest.
But interest can be allowed on the principle sum that is calculated to be due on the
promissory note.

s. 192 (2) – “Legal rate” = the rate per centrum per annum determined by the Monetary Board
established by the Monetary Law Act.

When may court order specific performance? s. 193

When the action is for breach of contract, if it appears that D is able to perform the contract, with the
consent of P, court can decree specific performance of contract within a time fixed by court. When
specific performance is decreed, court must also award an amount of damages which is to be paid as an
alternative if the contract is not performed.

Finality of decrees s. 207

All decrees passed by the court must be final between the parties (subject to appeal when such appeal is
allowed). No P shall hereafter by non-suited.

Explanation – * Every right to property /money / damages / relief of any kind that is set up/put in
issue between P & D in an action
* Whether it be actually claimed/set up/put in issue or not in that action,
* Becomes after passing the final decree a res adjudicata, which cannot afterwards be
Page38

made the subject of action for the same cause between the same parties.
Fernando v. Menikrala – A dismissal of a partition action does not operate as res
judicata in a subsequent action for declaration of title since the applicant is only trying to
prove a better title to a share of the land although he has no absolutely good title against
the whole world.

Peiris v. Peiris – An order dismissing a claim on the ground that the application was
improperly made does not make such order operate as res judicata because the order does
not fall under s. 244, s. 245 or s. 246.

Palaniappa v. Gomez – P brought action in Colombo DC. D was resident in Kalutara. P

was ordered to give security for costs. P failed to do so & the action was dismissed . P
brought filed another action on the same cause of action in the DC of Kalutara. D pleaded
the dismissal of the action in Colombo as res judicata
Held – Dismissal of first action operated as res Judicata & barred the second action.

Mohamed Cassim v. Sinna Lebbe – Dismissal of an action for declarationof titleto land
on the ground that P disclosed no valid cause of action does not operate as a bar to a
second action for the same relief.

Kantaiyer v. Ramu – A husband H was unsuccessful in an action brought by him, in

claiming certain lands which contended were belonging to his son (S) (a minor) by
inheritance from his wife (W). H sued as the guardian of S.
Later H obtained letters of administration to W’s estate & sued the same defendant
The defendant objected that the decision dismissing the previous action was res Judicata.
Held – The decision in the first action is no bar to the second action as the appellant did
not appear in the same capacity in both cases.

Muttupillai v. Chinnapillai – A granted a bond in favour of B. After B’s death, C (the

illegitimate child of B sued A as B’s sole heir & obtained judgments. Later E, the
legitimate child of B sued A on the same bond.
Held – E cannot maintain the action.

Manuel Istaky v. Sinnnatamby – Several debtors executed a joint promissory note. A

judgment was obtained against only one debtor in an action. The creditor later filed a
second action against other debtors.
Held – The creditor is debarred from file an action against other joint makers although
the judgment obtained against one debtor is not satisfied.

Appuhamy v. Banda – A D who had neglected to set up a claim in reconvention is not

barred from bringing a separate action for compensation for the improvements effected to
the land when he was in occupation.

Samichi v. Peiris – s. 207 does not embody the whole law as to res Judicata. Our law as
to res Judicata is to be found in s. 207 and it may be supplemented by English law. But
EL cannot supersede the s. 207 or restrict/expand its scope or meaning.

Perera v. Fernando – The dismissal of an action for declaration of title to land because
of P’s failure to proceed operates res Judicata even though the formal decree was not
entered in the first case in terms of s. 188
Page38

Katiritamby v. Parupathipillai – An erroneous decision an a pure question of law will

not operate res Judicata.
Fernando v. Perera – P is barred from filing a new action on the same matter on which
P had already instituted an action & withdrawn without reserving the right to bring a
fresh action.

Elias Appuhamy v. De Silva – Where P sued Ds on a joint debt & obtains judgment
against D1 & withdraws his action against D2,D is barred from suing D2 on the same
cause of action a second time.

Saiboo v. Abuthahir – Bond stated that the principal sum is payable on demand and that
the interest must be paid for a period 4 years once in 6 months & thereafter monthly.
Held – Here the covenants regarding the payment of the principal sum & the interest are
separate & independent. So an action to recover the interest will not bar a later action to
recover the principle amount.

Banda v. Karohamy – A D is bound to set up by way of defence, every ground

available to him. If he fails to do so, he cannot in a subsequent action be permitted to rely
on the self same ground in support of his claim.
BUT
Madan v. Nana Andy – D, in his action pleaded that he was public servant and claimed
the benefit of the Public Servants Liabilities Ord. His plea was rejected & judgment was
entered against him. In execution proceedings, D sought to raise the plea again.
Held – D could raise the plea. The previous finding did not operate as res judicata.

Mohamed Cassim v. Mahmood Lebbe – A decree operates as res Judicata only as

between parties or those claiming through such parties. It does not operate in
actions brought by / against persons whose interest is almost identical with that of
one of the parties to the first action but who do not actually claim through such
party.

Punchi v. Tikiri Banda – P applied for maintenance in respect of illegitimate child but
later withdrew her case on the date of trial saying that she had not enough evidence to
prove paternity. Later, she filed a second action in respect of the same child.
Held – the order of dismissal in the first action operated as a bar to the second action.

Ponniah v. Sheriff – The court is not bound by an earlier action in which material cases
& statutory provisions were not considered.

Vajiragnana Thero v. Gintota Anomadassi Thero – P of the first action died pending
the first action. The first action was abated on the ground that the cause of action
did not survive the death of P.
Held – it is competent for the deceased P’s successor in title to institute a fresh action
against the same D for similar relief.

Fernando v. Fernando – A plea based on facts which did not exist at the time of the 1st
action but which came into existence subsequently cannot be said to be one which could
have been raised in the 1st action.
If a right accrues after the institution of an action, the P is not bound to put in issue that
right the moment it accrues to him.

Nilabdeen v. Farook – An order regarding possession made in criminal proceedings (s.

Page38

66 action) does not operate as res judicata in respect of the questionof title arising in a
subsequent civil action.
 Suppiah Veeravagu v. Wilson Samarawicrema – The doctrine of res judicata applies
only to a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Jayasinghe v. Kiribindu – An erroneous decision of law does not prevent the court from
deciding the same question arising between same parties in a subsequent action according
to law (unlike a decision on a question of fact or of mixed law & fact).

Godagama Chulankara Thero v. Lavndris – Dismissal of the 1st action due to formal
defect in the plaint will not terminate the actual controversy by a judgment. The P is
entitled to file a 2nd action for the same relief as the res judicata does not operate in such
an instance.

Classification of Decrees s. 217

A decree of court may command the person against whom it operates to

(a) pay money
(b) deliver movable property
(c) yield up possession of movable property
(d) grant / convey / otherwise pass from himself any right to / interest in any property
(e) do any act not falling under any one of the foregoing heads
(f) enjoin that persons are not to do a specific act / to abstain from specific conduct / behaviour
(g) declare a right a / status.

The End..

Page38
Page38