The document discusses a revision application aimed at revising an order of the Provincial High Court regarding a dispute over the use of a pathway between three siblings. The High Court refused to entertain the revision application, stating there were no exceptional grounds. The petitioner argues this was contrary to law and facts of the case. The document analyzes relevant case law and acts governing disputes over land rights to determine what must be proven to establish entitlement to a disputed right in the Primary Court under this act, concluding there are two ways to prove entitlement: 1) by establishing acquisition of the right as in a civil case, or 2) by proving enjoyment of the right at the time the dispute arose, which requires less stringent proof than a civil case.
The document discusses a revision application aimed at revising an order of the Provincial High Court regarding a dispute over the use of a pathway between three siblings. The High Court had refused to entertain the revision application, stating there were no exceptional circumstances. The petitioner argued there were exceptional circumstances warranting revision. The Court of Appeal analyzed relevant case law and principles regarding revisionary jurisdiction. It determined that the petitioner failed to establish exceptional circumstances to warrant revision by the Court of Appeal. The document also discusses the standard of proof required in determining entitlement to rights under Section 69 of the Primary Court Procedure Act in disputes brought under Chapter VII.
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding a land dispute case. In 3 sentences:
The Court of Appeal was hearing an appeal against a High Court judgment that had reversed a Magistrate's determination in a land possession dispute case. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court was wrong to reverse the Magistrate based on an argument about non-compliance with a section of the law, as that argument should have been raised earlier. The Court of Appeal then allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and directed that the original Magistrate's determination be given effect.
Complaint against Advocates to Bar Council of BiharOm Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner Om Prakash filed a complaint against two advocates - Gopal Kumar and Dhirendra Prasad - for pursuing frivolous criminal litigation against him and his elderly mother.
2. Advocate Gopal Kumar had obtained a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner while he was caring for his ailing mother in the hospital. Advocate Gopal Kumar also filed two additional criminal cases despite a previous case being settled by the Delhi High Court in 2013.
3. Advocate Dhirendra Prasad threatened the petitioner and his mother with criminal charges if they did not apologize for a notice issued regarding their bank account and pension.
4. The petitioner requests appropriate action be taken against the advocates for
O documento descreve uma ação judicial movida por uma cliente contra uma construtora para rescindir contratos de compra e venda de terrenos. A cliente alega cláusulas abusivas e pede a devolução dos valores pagos, enquanto a construtora contesta a ação afirmando que os contratos foram negociados e renegociados diversas vezes de forma lícita e que não há fundamentos para a rescisão.
A contestação apresenta preliminar de mérito sobre a inépcia do pedido de 13o salário de 2008 e prejudicial de mérito sobre a prescrição bienal. No mérito, impugna os pedidos do reclamante referentes a adicional de transferência, horas in itinere, integração do valor de transporte, férias vencidas, equiparação salarial, reintegração, honorários advocatícios e 13o salário de 2008, requerendo a improcedência de todos. Por fim, requer a produção de provas e o acolhimento da preliminar e
(1) This irrevocable power of attorney grants full authorization to the Attorney to sell or transfer shares held by the Authorizer in a company. (2) The Authorizer waives any claims against the Attorney related to the use of this power of attorney, except in cases of gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud. (3) The rights and powers conferred on the Attorney by this document are irrevocable and shall not terminate for any reason.
O documento é um recurso ordinário interposto por Rogério Anacleto de Souza contra a sentença proferida em processo trabalhista no qual ele era autor contra Autograf Projetos e Construções Ltda e Petróleo Brasileiro S/A. O recurso argumenta que a sentença deve ser reformada para: 1) condenar o pagamento de multa prevista no artigo 467 da CLT; 2) reconhecer dano moral sofrido; e 3) condenar o pagamento de adicional de periculosidade.
Perjanjian ini membahas pendirian usaha bersama antara tiga pihak untuk bergerak di bidang tertentu. Perjanjian ini mengatur tentang nama dan tempat usaha, jangka waktu, kegiatan usaha, modal usaha, manajemen, pembagian keuntungan, dan penyelesaian perselisihan.
The document discusses a revision application aimed at revising an order of the Provincial High Court regarding a dispute over the use of a pathway between three siblings. The High Court had refused to entertain the revision application, stating there were no exceptional circumstances. The petitioner argued there were exceptional circumstances warranting revision. The Court of Appeal analyzed relevant case law and principles regarding revisionary jurisdiction. It determined that the petitioner failed to establish exceptional circumstances to warrant revision by the Court of Appeal. The document also discusses the standard of proof required in determining entitlement to rights under Section 69 of the Primary Court Procedure Act in disputes brought under Chapter VII.
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding a land dispute case. In 3 sentences:
The Court of Appeal was hearing an appeal against a High Court judgment that had reversed a Magistrate's determination in a land possession dispute case. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court was wrong to reverse the Magistrate based on an argument about non-compliance with a section of the law, as that argument should have been raised earlier. The Court of Appeal then allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and directed that the original Magistrate's determination be given effect.
Complaint against Advocates to Bar Council of BiharOm Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner Om Prakash filed a complaint against two advocates - Gopal Kumar and Dhirendra Prasad - for pursuing frivolous criminal litigation against him and his elderly mother.
2. Advocate Gopal Kumar had obtained a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner while he was caring for his ailing mother in the hospital. Advocate Gopal Kumar also filed two additional criminal cases despite a previous case being settled by the Delhi High Court in 2013.
3. Advocate Dhirendra Prasad threatened the petitioner and his mother with criminal charges if they did not apologize for a notice issued regarding their bank account and pension.
4. The petitioner requests appropriate action be taken against the advocates for
O documento descreve uma ação judicial movida por uma cliente contra uma construtora para rescindir contratos de compra e venda de terrenos. A cliente alega cláusulas abusivas e pede a devolução dos valores pagos, enquanto a construtora contesta a ação afirmando que os contratos foram negociados e renegociados diversas vezes de forma lícita e que não há fundamentos para a rescisão.
A contestação apresenta preliminar de mérito sobre a inépcia do pedido de 13o salário de 2008 e prejudicial de mérito sobre a prescrição bienal. No mérito, impugna os pedidos do reclamante referentes a adicional de transferência, horas in itinere, integração do valor de transporte, férias vencidas, equiparação salarial, reintegração, honorários advocatícios e 13o salário de 2008, requerendo a improcedência de todos. Por fim, requer a produção de provas e o acolhimento da preliminar e
(1) This irrevocable power of attorney grants full authorization to the Attorney to sell or transfer shares held by the Authorizer in a company. (2) The Authorizer waives any claims against the Attorney related to the use of this power of attorney, except in cases of gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud. (3) The rights and powers conferred on the Attorney by this document are irrevocable and shall not terminate for any reason.
O documento é um recurso ordinário interposto por Rogério Anacleto de Souza contra a sentença proferida em processo trabalhista no qual ele era autor contra Autograf Projetos e Construções Ltda e Petróleo Brasileiro S/A. O recurso argumenta que a sentença deve ser reformada para: 1) condenar o pagamento de multa prevista no artigo 467 da CLT; 2) reconhecer dano moral sofrido; e 3) condenar o pagamento de adicional de periculosidade.
Perjanjian ini membahas pendirian usaha bersama antara tiga pihak untuk bergerak di bidang tertentu. Perjanjian ini mengatur tentang nama dan tempat usaha, jangka waktu, kegiatan usaha, modal usaha, manajemen, pembagian keuntungan, dan penyelesaian perselisihan.
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...Om Prakash Poddar
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal by way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.(Crl.)D.No.3913 of 2017 issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with Affidavit and Annexures P-1 to P-5 filed before Supreme Court of India vide D.NO. 45930 dated 05.06.2017
True Copy of MATT. APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 before HIGH COURT of DELHIOm Prakash Poddar
True Copy of MATT. APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 before High Court of Delhi. (DECIDED ON 23.07.2013)
Cases moved even after withdrawal of Legal Aid by the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) in a critical situation when the appellant was out of Delhi.
Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul passed an order dated 06.11.2012,
“……LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING STATES THAT THE LEGAL AID TO THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN IN VIEW OF UNDESIRABLE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT…. NONE HAS APPEARED FOR THE APPELLANT AS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENT. ADVERSE ORDERS ARE DEFERRED ……ISSUE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT UNLESS HE MAKES NECESSARY ARRANGEMENT, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION ON THE NEXT DATE”.
Urgency Letter to Registrar Misc. Supreme Court of India dated 30.05.2017Om Prakash Poddar
The petitioner filed an appeal by way of motion against a lodgment order issued by the Supreme Court registrar. The petitioner is seeking the status of this appeal, as it was filed in February 2017 but has not been converted to a registered case or listed before the court. The petitioner notes defects were notified in the appeal filings, which have since been cured. Due to a lack of transparency on the court's website, the petitioner does not know the status of the appeal and is under stress without this information. The petitioner requests information on the status of the appeal against the lodgment order.
O documento descreve uma contestação à uma ação de reintegração de posse movida por uma empresa. A contestação alega que a empresa autora não comprovou que possuía a posse do imóvel, condição essencial para uma ação possessória, tendo apenas apresentado documentos sobre concessão de serviços públicos. Assim, pede o indeferimento da ação por carência de interesse processual.
This document discusses an application by Lee Pharma to the Indian patent office for a compulsory license on AstraZeneca's patented anti-diabetic drug saxagliptin. The controller rejected the application on the grounds that Lee Pharma did not adequately demonstrate that the patented invention was not meeting the reasonable requirements of the public, was not available at a reasonably affordable price, or was not being worked in India's territory.
Este documento apresenta o plano de ensino para a disciplina de Proteção Penal ao Indivíduo no 6o semestre de Direito. O plano descreve a ementa, objetivos, conteúdo programático e estratégias de avaliação, cobrindo tópicos como crimes contra a pessoa, honra, liberdade individual e dignidade sexual. A disciplina será ministrada por meio de aulas expositivas e práticas com discussões e estudos de caso.
1. La querellante presenta una querella por delito de difamación agravada contra dos periodistas y el director de la revista Caretas.
2. Se identifica a los querellados e indica sus datos personales.
3. Se detallan varios puntos difamatorios publicados en la revista, incluyendo información falsa y sin corroborar sobre la querellante. Se alega que los querellados actuaron con mala fe y causaron daño a la honra de la querellante.
This document summarizes key judgements related to encroachment of common village lands and preservation of common resources for village communities. Specifically:
- Courts have ruled that land recorded as village commons, like grazing grounds and ponds, are meant for common use and cannot be allotted privately. Unauthorized construction on such land must be demolished.
- Grabbing of village commons through illegal means, with help from officials or politicians, has reduced available land over time. Courts say this cannot be regularized and stern action is needed.
- Ancestral village resources like ponds are important for drought-proofing and should be protected for community use, not converted to private housing. Most village ponds
The document summarizes a court case between Gowtham S and the State of Karnataka. Gowtham S had filed a bail petition while already out on bail and in judicial custody due to an outstanding warrant. To remedy this, Gowtham S filed an application under Section 267(1)(a) and was released from custody. Gowtham S now requests to withdraw the original bail petition filed in error now that the warrant issue is resolved.
This document summarizes the key details of the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case regarding pollution of the Taj Mahal. It discusses how M.C. Mehta filed a public interest litigation to address air pollution caused by various industries that was damaging the white marble of the Taj Mahal. The court ordered a ban on coal and coke usage by industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone and mandated switching to natural gas or relocating. The document also examines the sources of pollution, technical reports on the pollution's effects, and the court's views and subsequent orders to constitute committees to address the issues and develop an action plan for pollution control.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a dispute over the right of way between two neighbors, M.M.A. Moomin and S. Nazeer. The Primary Court Judge had dismissed Moomin's application claiming right of way. Moomin then filed a revision application in the High Court. The High Court reversed the Primary Court's order and restored Moomin's right of way. Nazeer appealed this decision. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court Judge did not properly consider that Moomin had not established exceptional circumstances to invoke revisionary jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court did not give due consideration to the Primary Court Judge's site observation. Therefore, the Court of Appeal set
The document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a suspect who was directed by a Magistrate to file an affidavit admitting liability, despite not being formally charged. The Court of Appeal makes the following key points:
1) A Magistrate does not have the power to direct a suspect, rather than an accused, to file an affidavit admitting liability. Criminal proceedings must be formally instituted first.
2) Any purported admission made through the suspect's lawyer is inadmissible, as it does not originate directly from the suspect and was not certified as voluntary.
3) The Magistrate erred in remanding the suspect until an installment was paid, as there was no valid admission under the law and
This document contains summaries of numerous court cases from Sri Lankan law reports and NLR (Ceylon) law reports. It discusses cases related to various sections of commercial laws and statutes. The cases cited cover a period from the late 19th century to the early 2000s and relate to issues including contracts, debt, banking, finance and commercial transactions.
This document is a court ruling from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding a land dispute case. It summarizes that the original ruling from the Provincial High Court set aside the magistrate's determination regarding the disputed land. However, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court's grounds for setting aside the determination were unsustainable. Specifically, the identity of the disputed land had been properly established and notices had been correctly posted. There was also evidence that a breach of peace had occurred. Therefore, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the magistrate's original order regarding the disputed land.
1) The petitioner appealed an order by the High Court dismissing their case for lack of jurisdiction over matters involving state land.
2) The petitioner argued that the High Court exceeded its authority by interpreting the Constitution, which is solely within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
3) However, the Court of Appeal determined that no new question of constitutional interpretation was raised, and the High Court's decision was consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on jurisdiction over state land matters. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The court is hearing an appeal regarding a partition action. The district judge had failed to specify the undivided shares that each party was entitled to in the original judgment, instead directing the plaintiff to submit a schedule of shares and stating that schedule would form part of the judgment if consistent. The court finds this violates partition law, as the judge must determine shares. Prior case law also establishes shares must be included in the interlocutory decree. Therefore, the court sets aside the original judgment and sends the case back for a re-trial in accordance with partition law requirements.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a partition dispute over land.
(1) The petitioner sought revision of the district court judgment, arguing that the land sought to be partitioned was part of a larger land, and there was a discrepancy in the extent of land between the plaint and preliminary plan.
(2) However, the Court of Appeal found that the boundaries of the land in the preliminary plan were identical to those in the deeds produced. The undefined eastern boundary did not mean it was part of a larger land.
(3) It is not always necessary to prove original ownership of land to a high degree, and some leniency should be given. The petitioner also failed to
This document summarizes changes made to the Notaries Ordinance of Sri Lanka through several amendments. Key points:
- Notaries must be appointed by warrant from the Minister, specifying their authorized practice area and language(s). Attorneys-at-law who pass certain exams are automatically entitled to a notary warrant.
- Other applicants must meet qualifications including good character, minimum age, legal training/experience, and passing an exam.
- Notaries must have an office in their authorized area, give a security deposit, and are subject to oversight including potential suspension or warrant cancellation for misconduct.
- Procedures are established for notary registration and oversight by courts, and penalties are defined for
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding an application seeking revision of a High Court order concerning the return of two children to Australia under the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act. The court addressed several preliminary objections raised by the father (1st respondent) regarding the mother's (petitioner) locus standi to file the revision application, whether she was guilty of laches, and other issues. The court overruled the objections, finding that the mother had a right to file as an aggrieved party, the two month delay was not unreasonable, and that there is no right to appeal such orders under the relevant Act.
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...Om Prakash Poddar
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal by way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.(Crl.)D.No.3913 of 2017 issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with Affidavit and Annexures P-1 to P-5 filed before Supreme Court of India vide D.NO. 45930 dated 05.06.2017
True Copy of MATT. APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 before HIGH COURT of DELHIOm Prakash Poddar
True Copy of MATT. APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 before High Court of Delhi. (DECIDED ON 23.07.2013)
Cases moved even after withdrawal of Legal Aid by the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) in a critical situation when the appellant was out of Delhi.
Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul passed an order dated 06.11.2012,
“……LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING STATES THAT THE LEGAL AID TO THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN IN VIEW OF UNDESIRABLE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT…. NONE HAS APPEARED FOR THE APPELLANT AS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENT. ADVERSE ORDERS ARE DEFERRED ……ISSUE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT UNLESS HE MAKES NECESSARY ARRANGEMENT, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION ON THE NEXT DATE”.
Urgency Letter to Registrar Misc. Supreme Court of India dated 30.05.2017Om Prakash Poddar
The petitioner filed an appeal by way of motion against a lodgment order issued by the Supreme Court registrar. The petitioner is seeking the status of this appeal, as it was filed in February 2017 but has not been converted to a registered case or listed before the court. The petitioner notes defects were notified in the appeal filings, which have since been cured. Due to a lack of transparency on the court's website, the petitioner does not know the status of the appeal and is under stress without this information. The petitioner requests information on the status of the appeal against the lodgment order.
O documento descreve uma contestação à uma ação de reintegração de posse movida por uma empresa. A contestação alega que a empresa autora não comprovou que possuía a posse do imóvel, condição essencial para uma ação possessória, tendo apenas apresentado documentos sobre concessão de serviços públicos. Assim, pede o indeferimento da ação por carência de interesse processual.
This document discusses an application by Lee Pharma to the Indian patent office for a compulsory license on AstraZeneca's patented anti-diabetic drug saxagliptin. The controller rejected the application on the grounds that Lee Pharma did not adequately demonstrate that the patented invention was not meeting the reasonable requirements of the public, was not available at a reasonably affordable price, or was not being worked in India's territory.
Este documento apresenta o plano de ensino para a disciplina de Proteção Penal ao Indivíduo no 6o semestre de Direito. O plano descreve a ementa, objetivos, conteúdo programático e estratégias de avaliação, cobrindo tópicos como crimes contra a pessoa, honra, liberdade individual e dignidade sexual. A disciplina será ministrada por meio de aulas expositivas e práticas com discussões e estudos de caso.
1. La querellante presenta una querella por delito de difamación agravada contra dos periodistas y el director de la revista Caretas.
2. Se identifica a los querellados e indica sus datos personales.
3. Se detallan varios puntos difamatorios publicados en la revista, incluyendo información falsa y sin corroborar sobre la querellante. Se alega que los querellados actuaron con mala fe y causaron daño a la honra de la querellante.
This document summarizes key judgements related to encroachment of common village lands and preservation of common resources for village communities. Specifically:
- Courts have ruled that land recorded as village commons, like grazing grounds and ponds, are meant for common use and cannot be allotted privately. Unauthorized construction on such land must be demolished.
- Grabbing of village commons through illegal means, with help from officials or politicians, has reduced available land over time. Courts say this cannot be regularized and stern action is needed.
- Ancestral village resources like ponds are important for drought-proofing and should be protected for community use, not converted to private housing. Most village ponds
The document summarizes a court case between Gowtham S and the State of Karnataka. Gowtham S had filed a bail petition while already out on bail and in judicial custody due to an outstanding warrant. To remedy this, Gowtham S filed an application under Section 267(1)(a) and was released from custody. Gowtham S now requests to withdraw the original bail petition filed in error now that the warrant issue is resolved.
This document summarizes the key details of the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case regarding pollution of the Taj Mahal. It discusses how M.C. Mehta filed a public interest litigation to address air pollution caused by various industries that was damaging the white marble of the Taj Mahal. The court ordered a ban on coal and coke usage by industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone and mandated switching to natural gas or relocating. The document also examines the sources of pollution, technical reports on the pollution's effects, and the court's views and subsequent orders to constitute committees to address the issues and develop an action plan for pollution control.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a dispute over the right of way between two neighbors, M.M.A. Moomin and S. Nazeer. The Primary Court Judge had dismissed Moomin's application claiming right of way. Moomin then filed a revision application in the High Court. The High Court reversed the Primary Court's order and restored Moomin's right of way. Nazeer appealed this decision. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court Judge did not properly consider that Moomin had not established exceptional circumstances to invoke revisionary jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court did not give due consideration to the Primary Court Judge's site observation. Therefore, the Court of Appeal set
The document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a suspect who was directed by a Magistrate to file an affidavit admitting liability, despite not being formally charged. The Court of Appeal makes the following key points:
1) A Magistrate does not have the power to direct a suspect, rather than an accused, to file an affidavit admitting liability. Criminal proceedings must be formally instituted first.
2) Any purported admission made through the suspect's lawyer is inadmissible, as it does not originate directly from the suspect and was not certified as voluntary.
3) The Magistrate erred in remanding the suspect until an installment was paid, as there was no valid admission under the law and
This document contains summaries of numerous court cases from Sri Lankan law reports and NLR (Ceylon) law reports. It discusses cases related to various sections of commercial laws and statutes. The cases cited cover a period from the late 19th century to the early 2000s and relate to issues including contracts, debt, banking, finance and commercial transactions.
This document is a court ruling from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding a land dispute case. It summarizes that the original ruling from the Provincial High Court set aside the magistrate's determination regarding the disputed land. However, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court's grounds for setting aside the determination were unsustainable. Specifically, the identity of the disputed land had been properly established and notices had been correctly posted. There was also evidence that a breach of peace had occurred. Therefore, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the magistrate's original order regarding the disputed land.
1) The petitioner appealed an order by the High Court dismissing their case for lack of jurisdiction over matters involving state land.
2) The petitioner argued that the High Court exceeded its authority by interpreting the Constitution, which is solely within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
3) However, the Court of Appeal determined that no new question of constitutional interpretation was raised, and the High Court's decision was consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on jurisdiction over state land matters. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The court is hearing an appeal regarding a partition action. The district judge had failed to specify the undivided shares that each party was entitled to in the original judgment, instead directing the plaintiff to submit a schedule of shares and stating that schedule would form part of the judgment if consistent. The court finds this violates partition law, as the judge must determine shares. Prior case law also establishes shares must be included in the interlocutory decree. Therefore, the court sets aside the original judgment and sends the case back for a re-trial in accordance with partition law requirements.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a partition dispute over land.
(1) The petitioner sought revision of the district court judgment, arguing that the land sought to be partitioned was part of a larger land, and there was a discrepancy in the extent of land between the plaint and preliminary plan.
(2) However, the Court of Appeal found that the boundaries of the land in the preliminary plan were identical to those in the deeds produced. The undefined eastern boundary did not mean it was part of a larger land.
(3) It is not always necessary to prove original ownership of land to a high degree, and some leniency should be given. The petitioner also failed to
This document summarizes changes made to the Notaries Ordinance of Sri Lanka through several amendments. Key points:
- Notaries must be appointed by warrant from the Minister, specifying their authorized practice area and language(s). Attorneys-at-law who pass certain exams are automatically entitled to a notary warrant.
- Other applicants must meet qualifications including good character, minimum age, legal training/experience, and passing an exam.
- Notaries must have an office in their authorized area, give a security deposit, and are subject to oversight including potential suspension or warrant cancellation for misconduct.
- Procedures are established for notary registration and oversight by courts, and penalties are defined for
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding an application seeking revision of a High Court order concerning the return of two children to Australia under the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act. The court addressed several preliminary objections raised by the father (1st respondent) regarding the mother's (petitioner) locus standi to file the revision application, whether she was guilty of laches, and other issues. The court overruled the objections, finding that the mother had a right to file as an aggrieved party, the two month delay was not unreasonable, and that there is no right to appeal such orders under the relevant Act.
This document is a court ruling from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding a case between Herath Mudiyanselage Kalubandage and Kariapperuma Mudiyanselage Kurapurubaradage Herathbanda. The district court had dismissed the plaintiff's action for a declaration of title, finding he did not have title when the action was instituted. The Court of Appeal upholds this dismissal, noting the district court correctly relied on legal precedents establishing one must have title to bring such an action. While the concept of exceptio reI venditae et traditae does not apply to titles acquired under the Land Settlement Ordinance, the district court cannot be faulted for dismissing due to
An appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka by S. Jayarathne against a ruling by the Police Station in Bulathkohupitiya. Counsel for the appellant moved to withdraw the appeal. The counsel for the first party respondent did not object. The court allowed the application to withdraw the appeal and dismissed the appeal without costs.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a petition seeking to revise a district court's judgment in a land partition case. The key points are:
1) The petitioner argued that the district court failed to recognize that the land sought to be partitioned was part of a larger land and there was a discrepancy in the extent of land between the plaint and preliminary plan.
2) However, the court of appeal found that the boundaries of the land in the preliminary plan were identical to those in the deeds produced and in the plaint. The undefined eastern boundary did not mean it was part of a larger land.
3) It is not always required to prove original land ownership to a high degree
The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant and sent the case back for re-trial. The Court found that the procedure for admitting the deposition of a deceased witness (witness no. 8) under Section 33 of the Evidence Ordinance was not properly followed. Specifically, the entire record of the non-summary proceedings in the lower court was not produced, which is required. Only a statement from those proceedings was produced. Strict adherence to the procedure laid out in prior case law is necessary when admitting depositions of deceased witnesses.
1) The petitioner appealed an order by the High Court dismissing their case for lack of jurisdiction over matters involving state land.
2) The petitioner argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interpreting provisions of the Constitution, which is solely within the domain of the Supreme Court.
3) However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the High Court should have referred the constitutional question to the Supreme Court, the interpretation would not have changed the outcome of the case based on previous rulings.
The document discusses the concept of bail in Sri Lankan law. It begins by defining bail and explaining its historical origins and evolution. Bail allows an accused person to be free pending trial, provided there is assurance they will attend trial. The modern Sri Lankan law of bail is governed by the Bail Act of 1997, which introduced changes to consolidate bail laws and recognize constitutional rights to liberty. The Bail Act provides for both regular bail and anticipatory bail. The document also discusses factors like types of offenses (bailable vs. non-bailable), methods of release, duties of those out on bail, and safeguards against arbitrary detention.
This document provides a list of over 200 court cases from Sri Lanka spanning from the late 1800s to 2011 that relate to civil procedure law and authorities. The cases are cited from the Sri Lanka Law Reports (SLR) and the Ceylon Law Reports (NLR) and include the volume, page number and names of parties in each case. The cases cover a wide range of topics relevant to civil procedure in Sri Lanka over more than a century of jurisprudence.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for review of an arbitration decision in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) while arbitration decisions are subject to judicial review, the petitioner failed to avail the proper remedies and incorrectly filed in the RTC; (2) the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the review as the PCHC Rules purporting to grant such jurisdiction could not override the law; and (3) the proper remedies were a motion to vacate with the RTC, a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, or a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The arbitration proceedings are governed by the Arbitration Law and Rules of Court.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for review of an arbitration decision in favor of the respondent. The petitioner argued the RTC had jurisdiction based on the Philippine Clearing House Corporation Rules. However, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the RTC did not have jurisdiction and the petitioner should have filed for review with the Court of Appeals or petitioned to vacate the arbitral award with the RTC instead. The Court emphasized that while alternative dispute resolution is encouraged, arbitration is primarily governed by the Arbitration Law and Rules of Court, not private rules of an organization like the PCHC.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant in a cheque bouncing case.
The Court held that the lower courts erred in denying the appellant the right to cross-examine the complainant, as the relevant statute did not permit such a denial due to failure to pay interim compensation. The Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and directed that the case be restored to allow cross-examination of the complainant, and for further proceedings. The Court also directed the appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation.
CIVIL PROCEDURE - A POWER POINT PRESENTATION- BY A W A SALAMawasalam
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.
The High Court of Kerala heard two writ petitions challenging the refusal of the Sub Registrar to register documents without prior documents showing title. In both cases, the petitioners claimed possessory rights over the properties. The Court allowed both petitions based on prior judgments that the Sub Registrar cannot insist on prior documents and possessory rights can be transferred. The Court directed the Sub Registrars to register the documents in both cases without insisting on prior documents.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding the dismissal of a civil case.
The key details are:
1) The plaintiff filed a case seeking damages from the defendant. On a trial date, the plaintiff was present but his attorney was absent. The court refused the plaintiff's request for an adjournment and dismissed the case.
2) The plaintiff argued the dismissal was contrary to law and that the judge should have allowed the case to proceed instead of dismissing it.
3) The court found that since the plaintiff had an attorney, he could not represent himself or request an adjournment without the attorney present. The dismissal is therefore treated as an ex-parte order,
This document summarizes a court case from the Sri Lanka Law Reports from 2009 regarding a partition action.
(1) The plaintiff filed a partition suit to divide a land allegedly owned in common, but some defendants disputed the plaintiff's claimed chain of title. The plaintiff produced several deeds to establish title but the trial judge rejected them because the plaintiff did not prove their execution.
(2) On appeal, the court found that the rejection of the deeds contravened Section 68 of the Partition Law, which does not require formal proof of deed execution unless genuineness is disputed. The execution of the deeds was also not properly investigated.
(3) The court set aside the trial judgment and ordered a new trial
This document is a Supreme Court of India case summary. [1] It involves an appeal by the Salkia Businessmen's Association regarding displacement from their businesses for a flyover construction project. [2] A prior court order had disposed of the case based on a settlement agreement between the parties, which included providing alternative accommodations. [3] However, the authorities did not fully comply and proposed alternate terms, so the Association appealed again seeking enforcement of the original order terms. The Supreme Court allows the appeal, finding that the High Court failed to properly enforce its own prior orders binding the parties.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision involving two consolidated cases regarding a dispute over ownership of land. The petitioners, who include Gabriel Yap Sr. and Cebu South Memorial Garden Inc., claim ownership based on a certificate of agreement with respondent Letecia Siao to convert the land into memorial lots. The respondents argue the agreement is void due to coercion. The Court of Appeals set aside a summary judgment in favor of petitioners, finding defects in the certification against forum shopping. Petitioners argue the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the summary judgment and dismissing the case based on technical defects rather than addressing the substantive issues regarding ownership of the land.
Execution of unexecuted or compromised decreeCgemini
The document discusses the execution of compromised decrees under Indian law. It provides some key points:
1. Once a lawsuit or decree is compromised, the parties are barred from raising the same issue in court again or related issues from the same claim.
2. There are some exceptions where a compromised decree can still be executed - if the compromise was not properly recorded, if one party fulfilled their obligations but the other did not, or if there was a breach of the compromise agreement.
3. The validity of a consent decree depends on the validity of the compromise agreement it is based on. If a party can prove in court that there was no actual compromise, the court may reconsider the decree.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court decision regarding a dispute over local business taxes assessed by the City of Manila against various companies. The key points are:
1. Private respondents filed a case in regional trial court challenging the legality of certain local business tax provisions. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction preventing collection.
2. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the injunction, but the CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court treated the case as a petition for review. It found that while the CTA has appellate jurisdiction over local tax cases, its jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against interlocutory RTC orders was not expressly granted. However
Action to Recover Solicitor's Fees - Locus Standi and Privity Hurdle: The cas...Acas Media
Under Nigerian law, one who practices a profession and renders his professional services to another at his request is entitled to receive remuneration or professional fees from the beneficiary of such services unless he voluntarily waives the payment . In the case of a legal practitioner, one of the options open to recover fees or costs due to him in his professional capacity is a right of action in court to recover such fees .
Ramadhan is seeking to invoke Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 to remedy irregularities in his application against Syawal. Order 1A allows courts to consider justice over technical non-compliance. However, the document analyzes several cases that have found Order 1A cannot be used to override mandatory rules or cure intentional non-compliance. As Ramadhan failed to comply with the mandatory prerequisites in Order 6 Rule 7(2A) for renewing his writ, it is unlikely the court would allow him to invoke Order 1A in this case.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding whether filing an appeal automatically stays the execution of a High Court judgment.
(1) The case involved a land dispute between two brothers that was determined by a Magistrate's Court and then revised by the High Court. The petitioner appealed the High Court's judgment to the Court of Appeal.
(2) There were conflicting views on whether an appeal automatically stays execution. The Court examined this issue and relevant precedents. It determined that under the Primary Courts Procedure Act, an appeal does not automatically stay execution of a High Court judgment issued in revision of a determination under the Act.
(3) The Court found the prior cases relied too heavily on applic
The document discusses the writ as a mode of originating process in court. It provides details on:
- The requirements for a writ to be deemed issued, including being numbered, signed, dated and sealed.
- The importance of the date of issue, which determines limitation periods and the lifespan of the writ.
- The options if a plaintiff's writ expires, such as issuing a new writ or applying to renew the writ.
- The rules regarding serving a writ on individuals and companies, including the various methods and exceptions.
The document is an internship diary from a law student interning under Justice Dipak Misra at the Supreme Court of India. Over the course of 6 days, the student summarized cases heard by Justice Misra, observed court proceedings, conducted legal research, and submitted a report. The diary provides concise high-level summaries of the cases heard and legal issues discussed during the internship.
This document is a court judgment regarding the confiscation of vehicles used to transport sand illegally under the Mines and Minerals Act. The key points are:
1. The appellants had their vehicles confiscated for transporting sand without permits. They appealed arguing vehicles cannot be confiscated under the Act.
2. The Act allows confiscation of "machinery and/or equipment" used in offences, but does not mention vehicles. Other Acts specifically mention vehicles for confiscation.
3. The court examines other Acts and precedents and finds the legislature has adopted a lenient approach in the Mines Act compared to other strict Acts. Therefore vehicles are likely not meant to be confiscated under the Mines Act.
This document summarizes a court case involving the confiscation of vehicles used to transport sand without a permit, which is an offense under Sri Lankan law. Specifically:
1) Several individuals had their vehicles confiscated after being convicted of transporting sand without a permit. They appealed the confiscation.
2) The court examined whether the term "machinery and/or equipment" in the relevant law could include vehicles. After reviewing dictionary definitions and comparing to other laws, the court determined that vehicles were not included in the intended scope of confiscation.
3) The court referenced several other laws where vehicles were explicitly included for confiscation, but the law in question did not explicitly include vehicles. Therefore,
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of Sri Lanka case regarding an appeal of a criminal conviction. It discusses how the original trial court magistrate ordered the plaint to be quashed and the defendant released, but charges were later re-filed. The key issues are whether the original order amounted to an acquittal, which would prevent re-filing of charges, and whether charges must be properly framed before a court can issue a verdict of acquittal. The Supreme Court ultimately finds that a verdict requiring an acquittal can only be given after charges are read and evidence is considered, so the original order was just a discharge and not a full acquittal.
New law reports judge as a referee at football matchawasalam
1) This is a case where a wife applied for maintenance from her husband. The husband offered to maintain the wife if she lived with him. The court must consider if the husband's offer was made in good faith.
2) Even if the husband was not currently living in adultery, the circumstances of the case show that his offer to take his wife back was not made in good faith. His past conduct showed he was more interested in his mistress.
3) The husband was found liable to pay maintenance to his wife as his offer to maintain her if she lived with him was not considered to be genuine. The wife's income is also not a relevant factor in determining maintenance under the ordinance.
47 2013 rem impact of arbitaration act on admiralty jurisdiction act (1)awasalam
The document discusses a court case regarding a dispute over jurisdiction between Sri Lanka's Admiralty Court and arbitration. It analyzes relevant laws and maxims to determine whether the Admiralty Court's jurisdiction is overridden by an arbitration agreement. Specifically, it examines whether the general Arbitration Act of 1995 overrides the specific jurisdiction granted to the Admiralty Court under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1983. The court ultimately finds that the specific Admiralty Act is not overridden based on the legal maxim that "the general does not detract from the specific."
This document provides an overview of the Roman-Dutch law of partition and the statutory provisions that have replaced it in Sri Lanka over time. It discusses key aspects of partition actions such as the nature and goals, requirements to institute an action, need for expedited disposal of cases, and possession requirements. It also touches on important topics like legal representation, investigation of title, prescription among co-owners, and divided versus common possession of property in the context of partition suits.
This document summarizes a court case in the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding an appeal of a decision by the Wakfs Board and Wakfs Tribunal. The document provides background on the relevant laws and organizations, and discusses the appellants' arguments against the decision of the Wakfs Tribunal. It also examines the question of whether a direct appeal is allowed against decisions of the Wakfs Tribunal or if leave of the court is required, as there are conflicting judgments on this issue. The court will consider this question to resolve the conflict in determining if it can hear the direct appeal in this case.
This document provides a tribute to Ananda Wickramasekara, a celebrated lawyer from Galle, Sri Lanka, on the occasion of his 50 years of legal practice. It describes his upbringing and education, his excellent performance at law college, and his decision to practice law in Galle despite advice to join the metropolitan bar in Colombo. It highlights his mentorship of younger lawyers in Galle, his integrity and reduction of fees for less affluent clients, and his values and character as demonstrated through his family, career, and treatment of others.
(1) The Ceylon Commercial Bank debited the Ceylon Tobacco Company's account for Rs. 5,926,786 upon presentation of 8 cheques that the Tobacco Company claimed were forged.
(2) The Tobacco Company provided evidence including testimony from security managers, police, and handwriting experts analyzing specimen signatures, concluding the signatures on the cheques were forged.
(3) The District Court found the Bank was unable to prove the cheques were genuinely signed and ruled in favor of the Tobacco Company, ordering the Bank to repay the amount. The Bank appealed.
1) The plaintiff sued the defendant tenant for ejectment from residential premises on the ground of reasonable requirement, after giving 6 months notice of termination. However, the Rent Act requires 1 year's notice for termination in such cases.
2) The District Court granted relief to the plaintiff but deferred the writ of possession by 6 months. The defendant appealed.
3) The Court of Appeal held that failure to give the required 1 year notice before filing the case disentitles the plaintiff from maintaining the action for ejectment under the Rent Act. Giving a shorter notice period renders the action futile.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding whether an individual was an employee or independent contractor for purposes of contributing to an employee provident fund. The key points are:
1) The Assistant Commissioner of Labour held that the individual was an employee and ordered contributions to be made to the fund, but did not provide reasons for the decision.
2) The court examined whether reasons must be provided for non-appealable decisions like this one. While not strictly required, there is a trend that reasons should be provided to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary decisions.
3) Since no reasons were provided, the court could not determine if the decision that the individual was an employee was lawful or not. The
The plaintiff sued the defendant seeking a declaration that she had a right of way over the defendant's land (Lot 5) to access her landlocked property (Lot 4C). The trial court rejected the plaintiff's claim of a prescriptive right of way but found she was entitled to a way of necessity over Lot 5. The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal. The Court held that (1) an owner who subdivides land and deprives themselves of access is not entitled to a way of necessity over neighboring land; and (2) when land is subdivided, the back portions retain access over the front portions and not over neighboring land. Since the plaintiff's predecessor subdivided the land and deprived Lot 4C
1) The plaintiff sought a declaration that a deed transferring land to the defendants be declared void, alleging it was obtained through fraud. The trial court ruled in the plaintiff's favor.
2) On appeal, the defendants argued the causes of action were misjoined. However, the court found the plaintiff only raised issues regarding invalidating the deed, not declaring title.
3) The court also held that even if both causes of action were raised, this would be allowed. Declaring a deed invalid is consequential to declaring title. The standard of proof in allegations of fraud is a balance of probabilities.
1. The legal heirs of Capt. Chitralal Janaka Karunaratna sued Master Divers (PVT) Ltd, the owners of the vessel Silk Route Supplier III, for damages arising from breach of agreement and compensation for negligence after Karunaratna died from injuries sustained at work. [2]
2. The High Court awarded damages under the crew agreement and compensation for negligence. On appeal, Master Divers argued the awards were excessive as damages couldn't exceed the crew agreement amount, and there was a misjoinder of causes of action. [3]
3. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's judgment, finding that the crew agreement bound only the legal heirs, not depend
(1) The plaintiff filed an action seeking a declaration to close a road on her land that the defendants had been using, claiming it was only with her father's permission. She argued the defendants had an alternate access route.
(2) The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's action. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in its judgment, as there was no evidence the defendants had acquired prescriptive rights over the road after 50 years of use, or that they had rights of way out of necessity.
(3) The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court should have found in favor of the plaintiff and granted a declaration allowing her to close the road, since the defendants' use
(1) The accused was charged with contempt of court under section 797 of the Civil Procedure Code and acquitted by the District Court. The appellant appealed the acquittal.
(2) The accused objected that the appeal was not valid as it did not have the written consent of the Attorney General, as required by section 318 of the Criminal Procedure Code for appeals against acquittals.
(3) The judge examined the relevant laws and precedents. He determined that section 318, requiring the Attorney General's consent, should be followed mutatis mutandis for appeals against acquittals by the District Court under section 798 of the Civil Procedure Code. As the appellant did not obtain consent, the preliminary
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a claim of malicious prosecution. The key details are:
1) The plaintiff's electricity supply was disconnected due to non-payment, but he extended the supply to another part of his house. Upon inspection and complaint, the electricity board disconnected the remaining supply.
2) The plaintiff was then charged in Magistrate's Court under the Electricity Act but was acquitted. He filed a claim for damages from malicious arrest and prosecution.
3) The trial court dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff did not establish the elements for a malicious prosecution case. The plaintiff appealed.
This document provides a summary of a court case in Sri Lanka involving a vehicular accident.
(1) The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages resulting from injuries sustained as a passenger in the defendant's vehicle. The trial court found the defendant negligent and awarded damages.
(2) On appeal, the defendant argued there was no proof of negligence and damages were incorrectly calculated. The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding of negligence, citing the defendant's guilty plea in a criminal case for negligent driving.
(3) The appellate court also found the damages calculation reasonable except for one component related to the wife's lost employment, reducing the total damages slightly. The court's decision focused on establishing the defendant's negligence
(1) The 3rd and 4th defendants jointly filed a claim disputing the plaintiff's claims with a registered attorney. On the trial date, the attorney was absent. The 4th defendant was present but unrepresented. The judge improperly allowed the 4th defendant to cross-examine witnesses and present their case without legal representation.
(2) Normally, as long as a party has an attorney on record, that attorney must represent them in court. By allowing the 4th defendant to participate without counsel, the judge deprived them of their right to legal representation and to invoke legal remedies after the fact.
(3) The judge did not follow proper procedures by allowing the 4th defendant to participate without counsel when
1) This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a divorce granted on the grounds of malicious desertion.
2) The plaintiff claimed the defendant deserted him but did not specify the date of desertion in his pleadings. The defendant denied deserting the plaintiff and claimed he forced her to leave on a specific date.
3) The appeals court found multiple errors in the trial judge's decision, including allowing the plaintiff to introduce a specific desertion date not in the original pleadings, failing to properly analyze the evidence regarding desertion versus constructive desertion, and arriving at a conclusion not supported by the facts presented. The appeals court overturned the decision and dismissed the plaintiff's case.
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptxOmGod1
This PowerPoint presentation, titled "Capital Punishment in India: Constitutionality and Rarest of Rare Principle," is a comprehensive exploration of the death penalty within the Indian criminal justice system. Authored by Saif Javed, an LL.M student specializing in Criminal Law and Criminology at Kazi Nazrul University, the presentation delves into the constitutional aspects and ethical debates surrounding capital punishment. It examines key legal provisions, significant case laws, and the specific categories of offenders excluded from the death penalty. The presentation also discusses recent recommendations by the Law Commission of India regarding the gradual abolishment of capital punishment, except for terrorism-related offenses. This detailed analysis aims to foster informed discussions on the future of the death penalty in India.
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Frameworkdevaki57
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MEANING
Corporate Governance refers to the way in which companies are governed and to what purpose. It identifies who has power and accountability, and who makes decisions. It is, in essence, a toolkit that enables management and the board to deal more effectively with the challenges of running a company.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
A Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA WarNilendra Kumar
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan's proposal to its judges seeking permission to prosecute Israeli leaders and Hamas commanders for crimes against the law of war has serious ramifications and calls deep scrutiny.
1. ~
j
.1
4
I
i1
I,
I!
~
I
I~
I
iI
1
I
II
I1
I1
I
II
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
i1
~
• In the Court of Appeal of the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
C A (PHC) APN 117/2013
HC Galle HeRA 32/13
Ananda Sarath Paranagama
PARTY OF THE 2ND PART- PETITIONER-
PETITIONER
vs.
Dhammadhinna Sarath Paranagama
And
Kamitha Aswin Paranagama
PARTIES OF THE 1ST PART-RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT
Ole, Habaraduwa Police Station,
INFORMANT-RESPONDENT-
RESPONDENT
Before: A.W.A.Salam, J (PICA) and Sunil
Rajapaksha, J
Counsel: Dr Sunil Cooray with R. M Perera for
the 2nd party-petitioner-petitioner and Janaka
Balasuriya for the parties of the 1st respondent-
respondents.
Argument on: 10 February 2014
Decided on: 07 August 2014
:; ..
2. A.W.A.SALAM, J (PICA)
.ilr-rhis application IS aimed at reVIsIng an order of the
Provincial High·· Court entered in the exercise of the
revisionary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 154 P(3)(b)
of the Constitution. A narrative description of the main
events preceded the instant revision application, briefly are
as follows; Proceedings began under Chapter VII of the
Primary Court Procedure Act (hereinafter r~ferred to as the
"Act"), before the learned Magistrate (who is deemed to be a
Judge of the Primary Court1) upon a dispute referred for
adjudication under Section 66(1) (a) regarding the
obstruction of a pathway. The parties to the dispute were
three siblings. The learned Magistrate declared the parties
of the 1st part-respondents-respondents (referred to in this
judgment as the "respondents") as being entitled to use the
pathway of 17 feet in width.
Based on this decision, the learned Magistrate directed the
removal of the obstruction that was constructed across the
pathway so as to facilitate the use of it.
Discontented with the determination, the party of the 2nd
Part- Petitioner-Petitioner (referred to in the rest of this
judgment as the "petitioner") sought to invoke the
revisionary jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court. Upon
hearing the parties as to the maintainability of the revision
1 Vide Section 57 of the Judicature Act
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
2
3. application, the High Court refused to entertain the same,
on the ground that the petitioner has failed to adduce
exceptional/special grounds. The instant reVISIOn
application has been filed thereafter, with a view to have
the impugned order refusing to entertain the revision
application set aside and revised inter alia on the following
grounds.
1. The impugned refusal to entertain the reVISIOn
application is contrary to law and the facts of the
case.
2. The learned High Court Judge' has failed to
consider, evaluate, and give reasons for not
considering or accepting as exceptional
circumstances, the several matters set out in
paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said petition.
3. No other remedies are available to the petitioner to
prevent the wall being demolished although the
High Court had set out as the second ground that
there are other remedies available;
4. No reasons whatsoever are given in the said
judgment for dismissing the revision application on
the two grounds stated therein.
When an alternative remedy is available the type of restrain
imposed on the exercise of the reVISIonary powers, had
been discussed in several cases both in our Courts and
other jurisdictions. Suffice it to discuss the principle
embodied in the judgment of the well-known case of
Rustom Vs Hapangama [1978-79-80 SLR Volume IV Page
352] where it is laid down that the revisionary powers of a
Court will not be invoked, if an alternative remedy is
available, unless the existence of special circumstances are
C A PHC APN 117/2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
3
4. ..
urged and established necessitating the indulgence of
Court to exercise its powers in revision.
The term 'revision' means the examination of a decision
with a view to correction. The material points that may
arise for consideration in a revision application inter alia
are whether a subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction
which is not vested in it in law or whether it has failed to
exercise such jurisdiction which is so vested or has acted
in the exercise of the jurisdiction illegally or in excess of
jurisdiction or with material irregularity. -In other words,
strictly speaking a revision application calls for the
correction of errors concerning illegalities and patent
irregularities which are of such magnitude that call for the
discretionary powers of Court to correct them.
Hence, it is the duty of a High Court and the Court of
Appeal vested with the revisionary jurisdiction under the
Constitution, to ensure that the revisionary powers of such
Courts are not invoked as a matter of course, at the
expense of a successful party in the original Court having
to needlessly wait for the fruits of his victory to be reaped.
Inasmuch as the facts of this case are concerned, the trend
of authority not being in favour of the exercise of the
discretionary remedy unless upon the applicant showing
the existence of special circumstances warranting the
clemency of Court to exercise the revisionary jurisdiction,
the petitioner was obliged to adduce special or exceptional
C A PHC APN 117/2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
4
l
I
I
t
I;
l
t¥
I1f
I
I
II
II
I
I
5. !!
I
!
I
I
IIi
I
i
I!
I
j
i
1
j
1it
'1
1
J
1
1
'1
1,
circumstances. This is a condition precedent to entertain
the revision application by the High Court.
Similarly, as there is a right of appeal to this Court against
the refusal of the learned High Court Judge to entertain the
revision application, the petitioner has to establish
exceptional circumstances to have the impugned order
revised by this Court as well.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the High
Court Judge without giving any reasons by .a judgment of
two lines refused to issue notices and dismissed the
application stating that there were no exceptional
circumstances on which its revisionary jurisdiction could
be exercised. He complains that this has culminated in a
miscarriage ofjustice.
On a consideration of the practice ordinarily adopted by
Courts in disposing revision applications at the threshold
stage, it is manifest that the contention raised by learned
Counsel is wholly untenable and devoid of merits. In other
words, in an order refusing to entertain an application, the
High Court Judge can most of the time able to state that
there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the
entertainment of the application and no more. He is not
obliged to gIve details regarding the existence or
nonexistence of special or exceptional circumstances. In
passing it might be of some relevance to mention that this
is the procedure adopted even in the Supreme Court when
application for special leave is refused.
C A PHC APN 117/2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
5
t
f
iI
~
iy
~
i
t
ti
t
!
I
I•
t
i,
t
I
J
•~
I
II
If
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
6. The main ground alleged in the revision application made
to the High Court was that the learned Magistrate had not
given his mind as to the proof required of the right in
question in a Section 66 matter, as the action is commonly
known. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the respondents were obliged to establish In the
Magistrate's Court the entitlement to use the pathway by
proof of user for an uninterrupted period of 10 years
adverse to the petitioner's rights. This ground alleged as a
special circumstance warranting the int~rVention of the
High Court by way of its revisionary powers should fail
in-limine as there is no requirement under Chapter VII -
Section 69 to establish the entitlement in the same manner
as is usually proved in a civil case.
The ingredients necessary to be proved to obtain a
declaration of 'entitlement' as contemplated in Section 69
of the Act will be discussed at a different stage.
On a consideration of the material available, it appears to
me that the petitioner has failed to impress upon this
Court that there are exceptional circumstances to warrant
the intervention of this Court by way of revision. Therefore,
the endeavour made by the petitioner to involve this Court
in the correction of the purported error committed by the
High Court should fail.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a
glaring error of law has been committed by the learned
Magistrate when failing to address his mind as to whether
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
,
""
6
7. I
I
I
I
i
Ij
I
II
II
I1
1j
~
1
!
1
j
t
!
i
1
!
11
l
one brother has used the right of way over the other
brother's land adversely to the latter, and for a period of
not less than 10 years. The glaring error said to have been
committed in coming to the conclusion as to the existence
of the pathway followed by the order of demolition to
remove the impediment, according to the petitioner, has
ended up in serious miscarriage ofjustice.
It is elementary principle of law that under Chapter VII of
the Act, when the dispute relates to the po~session of an
immovable property, the Judge of the Primary Court IS
duty-bound under Section 68 to restrict to the issue of
actual possession as at the date of filing the information,
except where a person who was in possession of the
subject matter is dispossessed within a period of two
months immediately preceding the date on which
information under Section 66 was filed.
Unlike in the case of a dispute relating to possesslOn of
immovable property, no timeframe has been laid down as
to the length of time during which the right should have
been enjoyed in relation to the purported entitlement. In
resolving such a dispute the Judge of the Primary Court is
expected to determine as to who is entitled to the right
which is the subject of the dispute and make an order
under Section 69(2).
The marginal note to Section 69 of the Act reads as
"Determination and order of Judge of the Primary Court
when dispute is in regard to any other right". For purpose
C A PHC APN 117/2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
7
f
tf
t
~
!
~
•
i
t
lf
~
!
!r
{
f
1
t
f§
i~
!
i
I!I
!
!
I
II
I
I
I
8. of ready reference, Section 69 of the Act IS reproduced
below...
(1) Where the dispute relates to any right to
any land or any part of a land, other than the
rightto possession of such land or part
thereof, the Judge of the Primary Court shall
determine as to who is entitled to the right
which is the subject of the dispute and make
an order under Sub-Section (2).
(2) An order under this Sub-Section may
declare that any person specifie<;l therein shall
be entitled to any such right.in or respecting
the land or in any part of the land as may be
specified in the order until such person is
deprived of such right by virtue of an order or
decree of a competent Court, and prohibit all
disturbance or interference with the exercise
of such right by such party other than under
the authority of an order or decree as
aforesaid.
The question that arises for determination at this stage is
whether a party claiming a right to any land other than the
right to possession should establish his Jjght precisely as
he is expected to do in a civil case or whether he could
succeed in obtaining the declaration as contemplated in
Section 69, merely by proving that he enjoyed the right as
at the time when the dispute arose. It is to be understood
that the proof of the acquisition of the right is totally
different from proving the enjoyment/existence of the right
at the time the dispute arose.
In dealing with the nature of the right, a Judge of the
Primary Court is expected to adjudicate under Section 69
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
8
9. of the Act, Sharvananda, J (later Chief Justice) in the case
of Ramalingam Vs Thangarajaha 1982 Sri Lanka Law
Reports - Volume 2 , Page - 693 stated that in a dispute in
regard to any right to any land other than right of
possession of such land, the question for decision,
according to Section 69(1), is who is entitled to the right
which is subject of dispute. The word "entitle" here
connotes the ownership of the right. The Court has to
determine which of the parties has acquired that right or IS
ENTITLED FOR THE TIME BEING TO EXERCISE THAT
RIGHT. In contradistinction to Section 68 of the Act,
Section 69 requires the Court to determine the question as
to which party is entitled to the disputed right preliminary
to the making of an order under Section 69(2).
(Capitalization is mine)
According to the decision in Ramalingam (supra) the Judge
of the Primary Court has two options, in deciding as to
which of the parties should be declared entitled to the
right. Since the word "entitle" as used in Section 69
implies ownership of the right, the Judge of the Primary
Court could determine as to who in fact has acquired the
disputed right. In the larger sense it means any kind of
proof of the acquisition of the disputed right as envisaged
by any law dealing with the ingredients to be proved. For
instance, if the disputed right is the existence of a right of
way, the party who desires the Court to pronounce his
entitlement may establish the uninterrupted and
undisturbed use of the pathway, by a title adverse to or
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
9
10. independent of the owner that is to say, a use of the
pathway unaccompanied by any payment from which an
acknowledgment of a right existing in another person
would fairly and naturally be inferred for ten years previous
to the filing of the information under Section 66 of the Act.
This may not be possible in every case relating to a dispute
over a right concerning an immovable property, as the
proceedings under Chapter VII of the Act is required to be
held in a summary manner, concluded. within three
months of the commencement of the inquiry and the order
under Section 68 or 69 as the case may be, having to be
delivered within one week of the conclusion of the inquiry.
Further, under Section 72 of the Act before the
pronouncement of the order, the material on which the
Judge of the Primary Court may act are limited to certain
types of material unlike in a civil case where parties have
the option to lead evidence of any volume as long as it is
admissible and relevant to the facts in issue and facts
relevant to the facts in issue.
It is now trite law that in an inquiry under Chapter VII of
the Act, adducing evidence by way of affidavits and
documents is the rule and oral testimony is an exception to
be permitted only at the discretion of the Judge. The
discretion is hardly exercised to permit oral testimony and
generally not granted as a matter of course. In such an
instance it is not only impracticable but beyond the ability
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
10
11. of a party to establish a right as is usually accomplished in
a civil Court under the regular procedure.
Although in certain limited number of disputes, a party
may be able to e&tablish the right he claims strictly in
accordance with the substantial law, in a large number of
cases they may not be able to do so, by reason of the
limited time frame within which the inquiry has to be
concluded, the restricted mode of proof and the sui generis
nature of the procedure.
There are two ways in which an entitlement can be proved
in the Primary Court. They are ...
1. By adducing proof of the entitlement as is done in a
civil Court.
2. By offering proof that he is entitled to the right FOR
THE TIME BEING.
The phrase "for the time being" as used in the decision in
Ramalingam's case connotes the exercise of right by one
party, temporarily or for the moment until such time such
person is deprived of his right by virtue of a judgment of a
Court of competent jurisdiction. If you describe a party as
being entitled to enjoy a right but for the time being, it
means that it will be like that for a period of time, but may
change in the future. This is exactly in keeping with
legislative wisdom embodied under part VII of the Act.
The rationale behind this principle is that the conferment
of the special jurisdiction on a Judge of the Primary Court
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
11
12. under Chapter VII of the Act is quasi-criminal in nature
and is intended to facilitate the temporary settlement of the
dispute between the parties so as to maintain the status
quo until the rights of the parties are decided by a
competent civil Court. Subject to this, every other
concerns however much prominent they may appear to be,
will have to be placed next to the imperative necessity of
preserving the peace.
As has been emphasised in the case of Ramalingam (supra)
at an inquiry under Chapter VII, the action taken by the
Judge of the Primary Court is of a purely preventive and
provisional nature, pending the final adjudication of the
rights of the parties in a civil Court and the proceedings
under this Section are of a summary nature. Moreover, it is
essential that they should be disposed of as expeditiously
as possible. In the circumstances, although it is open to a
party to prove the right he claims to be entitled to as is
required under the substantial law dealing with a
particular right, it is not impossible for him to be content
with adducing proof to the effect that he has the right to
enjoy the entitlement in dispute for the time being.
Even in a civil action when the plaintiff had failed to prove
a clear case of servitude there had been instances where
the Courts have issued restraining orders against the right
of way being obstructed. One such case is Perera Vs.
Gunatilleke where Bonsor C. J, observed as follows:
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
12
13. "It seems to me that, where a person establishes
that he has used a way as of right openly and
continuously for a long period and is forcibly
prevented from using it, he is entitled to an
injunction to restore him to the quasi possession of
the way, irrespective of whether he can establish
the existence of a servitude. We will treat this
action as a possessory action and grant an
injunction which will restore the status quo ante"
[4 NLR 181]
Historically, unlike In India which introduced laws to
combat the breach of the peace arising from disputes
relating to immovable properties very early, the Magistrates
here did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate over such
disputes until recently. As it was unaffordable to permit
violence in the name of civil disputes which generally
culminates in the devastation of the progress of a nation,
the bench and the bar had continued to clamour for Laws
to be introduced to meet the challenges.
In 1953 the Criminal Courts Commission headed by E F N
Gratian (Chairman) and M S F Pulle (Commissioner)
accompanied by its Secretary M C Sansony 2 forwarded its
report to His Excellency the Governor suggesting that
changes be brought into the law to put an end to this
menace.
2 All of them adorned the Supreme Court
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
13
tt
.'f1
14. The suggestions made by the commission with regard to
disputes affecting lands, resulting in the breach of the
peace are found at page 8 and 9 of the report. The
suggestion made by the Criminal Courts Commission was
to strengthen the hands of the Magistrates to adjudicate
summarily on disputes affecting land where the breach of
the peace is threatened or likely and to permit the
enjoyment of the rights relating to lands to those who are
entitled to enjoy them FOR THE TIME BEING.
It took almost two decades to pass Laws·· in terms of the
suggestion made by the Criminal Courts Commission,
when the National State Assembly in 1973 made Provisions
by enacting law No 44 of 1973 with the inclusion of Section
62 which was later replaced by Act No 44 of 1979 (Vide
Chapter VII).
As the original Provision of Section 62 In the
Administration of Justice Law was based on the report of
the Criminal Courts Commission, it is pertinent at this
stage to reproduce the relevant passages from the said
report concerning the suggestions made with regard to
disputes affecting immovable properties. For purpose of
ready reference the suggestions made by the commission
are reproduced below...
"Dispute as to immovable property
C A PHC APN 117/2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
14
15. 10. Many disputes and resulting offences spring from
rival claims to land. There is at present no method by
which a Magistrate can deal speedily and summarily
such disputes. It is essential that the Magistrate should
be vested with statutory powers to make orders with
regard to the possession of lands where disputes
affecting such lands may result in a breach of the
peace. The procedure suggested by us in Section 98 A
is based in part on the provisions of Section 145 of the
Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. A~. far as possible,
notice will be given to the parties alleged to be
concerned in the dispute, but whether such notice
reaches the parties or not the Magistrate will hold
summary inquiry and may, even before the inquiry is
concluded, make an interim order on the question of
possession in order to maintain the peace. The purpose
of the inquiry is to enable the Magistrate to determine in
a summary manner who should FOR THE TIME BEING
permitted to enjoy the right in dispute, but he will make
an order which may not be founded strictly on the legal
merits of the claim of the rival parties but rather with
the view to the necessities of the immediate emergency.
It will be directed rather to resorting to the status quo
and to ensure that interference, except by due process
of law, which possession does not give rise to a breach
of the peace. The ultimate decision as to the legal right
of the parties will necessarily have to be made, in
subsequent proceedings, by a competent civil Court. No
C A PHC APN 117/2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
15
16. particular procedure has been prescribed in regard to
the manner of holding the inquiry, for that would only
have introduced technicalities. The order eventually
made by the Magistrate will be purely a temporary one
and a refusal to comply with it in breach of it is made
punishable. [Capitalisation added]
11. We have sought to give effect to the principle that
parties should not take the law into the.ir own hands.
Therefore, any party who dispossesses' another forcibly
should not gain any advantage thereby, when the
Magistrate makes his final order. The scope of the
Section has been deliberately made as wide as possible
in order to embrace all possible disputes concerning any
rights affecting land, and the intention is that in making
an equitable interim order, a Magistrate is empowered
to order a party placed in possession FOR THE TIME
BEING to furnish security for t~e purpose of complying
with the final decision of the dispute". [Capitalisation
added]
From the above report, it would be seen that the
commission has given the highest priority to orders being
made FOR THE TIME BEING, permitting those who enjoy
the rights to continue with it, until such time the Court of
competent jurisdiction resolves the dispute on a permanent
basis.
C A PHC APN 117/2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
16
17. Insistence on the proof of a right as in the case of a civil
dispute, in this type of proceedings, would lead to two
original Courts having to resolve the identical dispute on
the same evidence, identical standard of proof and
quantum of proof twice over. This would indeed an
unnecessary duplicity and is not the scheme suggested by
the Criminal Courts Commission and could neither be the
intention of the Legislature.
One has to be mindful of the fact that there are still judicial
officers in this country who function simultaneously as
Judges of the Primary Court, Magistrates, and Judges of
the Juvenile Court, Judges of the family Court and District
Judges. If disputes affecting lands under the Primary Court
Procedure Act are to be heard by the Primary Court Judges
and later the civil case as District Judges on the same
evidence, same standard of proof and identical quantum of
proof, it would not only result in the utter wastage of the
precious time of the suitors and the Courts but will be a
meaningless exercise as well.
Turning to the determination, the learned Magistrate has
addressed his mind to the averments in the affidavits of
both parties and considered the documents annexed and
given cogent reasons for his findings. In short, the findings
of the learned Magistrate are quite logical, stand to reasons
and consistent with the material available. He has referred
to the petitioner as having stated at the inspection that the
respondents used the pathway in question as permissive
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
17
18. users. As a result, the parties in the Magistrate's Court
were at variance only as to the nature of the pathway and
not whether the respondents used the pathway. There is
thus an implied admission of the road having been used by
the respondents. Therefore the issue is whether the
pathway used by the respondents is a right of servitude or
a merely permissive user in nature. The wall has been put
up overnight to obstruct the pathway.
In the Primary Court Procedure Act under Section 75 a
dispute is defined as follows...
" dispute affecting land includes any dispute as to
the right to the possession of any land or part of a
land and the buildings thereon or the boundaries
thereof or as to the right to cultivate any land or
part of a land, or as to the right to the crops or
produce of any land, or part of a land, or as to any
right in the nature of a servitude affecting the
land and any reference to " land" in this Part
includes a reference to any building standing
thereon. (Emphasis added)
In the case of Kandiah Sellappah Vs Sinnakkuddy
Masilamany (CA application 425/80- C A. minute dated 18
March 1981, Abdul Cader, J with the concurrence of Victor
Perera, J held inter alia that the claimant of a footpath who
started using it in 1966 August and was obstructed a few
months before the prescriptive period of 10 years, in June
1976 was not entitled to a declaration under section 69.
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
18 '
19. Having analysed the evidence led in the lower court his
Lordship formed the opinion that there had been no
satisfactory evidence on which it can be held that the
claimant exercised a right which has been in continuous
existence for a period of time prior to his use.
I am of the view that the decision in Kandiah Sellappah's
case has been entered per incuriam without properly
defining or appreciating that all what section 76 mandates
is "a dispute in the nature of a servitude" and not a dispute
touching upon a servitude per se. Therefore, when the right
concerned is in the nature of a servitude relating to a right
of a pathway, the period of 10 years plays no important
role.
Further, the answer to this issue is found in the Judicature
Act No 2 of 1978 by which the primary court had been
created. In terms of section 32 (2) of the Judicature Act the
primary court shall have no jurisdiction in respect of the
disputes referred to in the 4th schedule, irrespective of the
value thereof. According to the 4th schedule the actions
excluded from the jurisdiction of the primary court inter
alia are as follows..
12. Any action for a declaratory decree including a
decree for the declaration of title to a land.
24 (i) for obstruction to or interference with the
enjoyment of any servitude or the exercise of any
right over property.
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HeRA 32 13
19
20. The two exclusions referred to above provide clear
authority for the proposition that the right intended to be
declared under section 69 is definitely not with the regard
to servitude per se but a right in the nature of a servitude.
Since the dispute in this case therefore is a right connected
with land in the nature of servitude there is no doubt that
the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the
issue in terms of the Act.
He also had jurisdiction to order the demolition of the
construction that obstructed the pathway. In Tudor Vs.
Anulawathie and Others - 1999 - Sri Lanka Law Reports
Volume 3, Page No - 235 it was decided that although there
is no specific Provision in the Primary CourtsI Procedure
Act, expressly enabling the Court to order removal of
obstructions in the way of restoration of the right to the
person entitled thereto in terms of the determination made
by the Court, there is no such· prohibition, against the
Court exercising such a power or making such an order..
As was held in Narasingh v. Mangal Dubey - (1883) 5
Allahabad 163, the Courts are not to act on the principle
that every procedure is to be taken as prohibited unless it
is expressly provided for by law. What in fact matters here
is the converse that every procedure is to be understood as
permissible till it is shown to be prohibited. As such, I can
see no reason as to how the order of demolition made by
the learned magistrate can be faulted as being illegal. It
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HeRA 32/13
'"-..
20
21. axiomatic wisdom that prohibitions are generally not
presumed and therefore a court cannot be faulted for
acting on the converse.
The photograph produced marked as 2D9b, by the
petitioner has been observed by the Magistrate as an
attempt to mislead Court with regard to certain important
features of the subject matter.
According to the affidavit of the Postmaster of the relevant
area, following the construction of the: wall, postal
authorities had experienced difficulties in delivering the
mails, addressed to the respondents.
Further, the affidavit of the sister of both parties bears
testimony that the pathway had existed over a period of 40
years servIng as access road / to buildings bearing
assessment No's 195/1 and 195/2.
According to the affidavit of the Grama Niladhari the
pathway in question had been used for a period of 50 years
as access to the aforesaid buildings.
In addition, a lawyer practising in Galle and a SCIence
teacher had affirmed severally that the right of way had
been used over a period of time.
The employees of the respondents also have affirmed to the
existence of the road in question. Further, certain others
who had used the pathway also had given affidavits.
Upon a consideration of the material referred to in Section
72 of the Act, the learned Magistrate has formed the
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
:t:.,
21
ti
I!!
I
[
Ij
i
!!
I
II
I
I
22. I
!I
opinion that the respondents are entitled to use the said
pathway. This being a finding based on the credibility of
the witnesses and parties, I do not think the High Court
Judge or this Court should interfere with it, as the law
permits the reversal of such a strong finding only if it had
ended up in a miscarriage or travesty of justice. No such
eventualities appear to have taken place by reason of the
magisterial determination.
By placing a permanent obstruction In a haste, with no
justification or explanation warranting such aquick action,
carried into effect over a weekend, the petitioners appear to
have aimed at making the respondents unable to tum to
Court for redress, a compelling reason that had influenced
the Magistrate to look for a draconic measure to undo the
damage.
I feel obliged here to reiterate the concern of Bonser CJ
penned over a century and a decade ago (4 NLR 181) which
needs to re-echo in the minds of every officer exercising
judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative powers. in
resolving or investigating into a complaint touching upon
the breach or apprehension of a breach of the peace
emanating from a dispute affecting land. It reads as
follows...
Illn a Country like this, any aHempt of parties to use
force in the maintenance of their rights should be
promptly discouraged. Slight brawls readily blossom
into riots with grievous hurt and murder as the fruits.
It is, therefore, all the more necessary that Courts
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32 13
22
23. i
II
I
Ii
I
I
I
Ii
I
.. should strict in discountenancing all aHempts to use
force in the assertion of such civil rights".
BONSER CJ- Perera Vs. Gunathilake (1900 - 4
N.L.R 181 at 183)
In conclusion, I wish to place it on record that land
disputes can cause social disruption and sometimes loss of
life. They can have a negative impact on the development of
lands and eventually on the economy of the Country. An
efficient and effective system for settling land disputes is
essential in any Country although the resolution of land
disputes may appear to be complex. However trivial the
dispute may be, it is the duty of the law enforcing
authorities to pay senous attention to the Issue,
particularly with a view to take a preventive measure
against possible violence. The determination of the learned
Magistrate points to a right decision taken at the right time
in the best interest of the parties, in consistent with the
Law and the Legislative aim. Any decision to overturn such
a decision by the High Court would have ended up in a
miscarriage ofjustice.
Hence, it would be seen that the petitioner has failed to
adduce exceptional circumstances or made out a case
deserving the exercise of the revisionary powers of this
Court under Article 138 of the Constitution.
He has neither unfolded a case deserving the intervention
of the Provincial High Court by way of revision under
Article 154 (3) (b) of the Constitution. In the circumstances,
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
23
24. the fate of the petition could not have been different from
how it culminated in the High Court.
Hence, the Magistrate and the Learned High Court Judge
are amply justified _in their respective conclusions which
effectively had prevented the petitioner from taking the law
into his own hands. The decision allowing the respondents
to continue to enjoy the disputed right in the nature of a
servitude for the time being, is the only order that could
have been lawfully made by the Magistrate.
Revision application is therefore dismissed subject to costs
fixed at Rs 1,03,000/-.
Sunil Rajapaksha, J
I agree
TW/-
~,~...
President/Court of Appeal
~~
Judge of ~he Court Of Appeal
C A PHC APN 117 2013 HC Galle HCRA 32/13
24