786 upto sec 40 pdf (6) (1)

Table of Contents Section 1 .................................................................................................................... 2

Section 4 .................................................................................................................... 2

INTERPRETATION .......................................................................................................... 3

6. Action .................................................................................................................... 5

7. The procedure of an action may be either " regular " or " summary ". ....................................... 6

8. Procedure of action to be ordinarily regular. ..................................................................... 6

Institution of actions: in what court. .................................................................................. 7

10. Of application for withdrawal and transfer of action. ......................................................... 8

11. Plaintiffs................................................................................................................ 9

12. Where joint tenants or tenants in common ...................................................................... 9

13. Substituted and added plaintiffs. ................................................................................ 10

14. Defendants. .......................................................................................................... 10

14A.Substitution where person against whom a right to any relief is alleged to exist dies and the right

to sue for relief survives. .............................................................................................. 11

15. Who may be joined as parties defendant. ..................................................................... 13

16. Where numerous parties, one may sure or defend for all. Notice. ....................................... 13

17. Misjoinder not to defeat action. ................................................................................ 14

18.Parties improperly joined may be struck out. .................................................................. 15

19. Intervention not otherwise allowed. ............................................................................ 17

20. Conduct of the action. ............................................................................................. 18

21. Amendment of plaint. ............................................................................................. 18

22. Objections for non-joinder or misjoinder to be taken before hearing. ................................... 19

23.Plaintiffs (or defendants) may authorize one of them to act for them. ................................... 20

24.Appearances may be by party in person, his recognized agent, or attorney-at-law. ................... 20

25. Recognized agents. ................................................................................................. 21

26. Processes served on the recognized agent, effectual. ....................................................... 22

27.Appointment of registered attorney. ............................................................................ 23

28. Death or incapacity Of registered attorney. .................................................................. 25

29. Service on registered attorney. .................................................................................. 26

30. Agent to accept service. ......................................................................................... 27

30A. Agent to accept service in action upon mortgage of immovable property. ............................ 27

[2,12 of 1973] ............................................................................................................ 27

33. Regular action how to be framed. .............................................................................. 28

34.Every action shall include whole claim. ......................................................................... 28

35. Joinder of claims in actions for immovable property. ....................................................... 30

36. In other cases. ...................................................................................................... 31

37. Application by defendant in such cases. ....................................................................... 32

38. Order of court thereon. ........................................................................................... 32

39. Regular action to commence by plaint. ....................................................................... 33

Requisites of Plaint ................................................................................................... 33

Section 1

1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Civil Procedure Code.

Section 4 WHERE NO PROVISION IS MADE SPECIAL DIRECTIONS TO BE GIVEN BY COURT OF APPEAL.

IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH NO PROVISION IS MADE BY THIS ORDINANCE, THE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE

HITHERTO IN FORCE SHALL BE FOLLOWED, AND IF ANY MATTER OF PROCEDURE OR PRACTICE FOR WHICH

NO PROVISION IS MADE BY THIS ORDINANCE OR BY ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE SHALL AFTER

THIS ORDINANCE COMES INTO OPERATION ARISE BEFORE ANY COURT, SUCH COURT SHALL THEREUPON

MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR, AND THE COURT OF APPEAL SHALL AND IS HEREBY

REQUIRED TO GIVE, SUCH SPECIAL ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS THEREUPON AS THE JUSTICE OF THE CASE

SHALL REQUIRE :

PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT NOTHING IN THIS ORDINANCE CONTAINED SHALL BE HELD IN ANY WAY TO AFFECT

OR MODIFY ANY SPECIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE WHICH, UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY

ENACTMENT, MAY HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN LAID DOWN OR PRESCRIBED TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY

CIVIL COURT IN SRI LANKA IN THE CONDUCT OF ANY ACTION, MATTER, OR THING OF WHICH ANY SUCH

COURT CAN LAWFULLY TAKE COGNIZANCE, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS ANY SUCH PROVISIONS ARE BY THIS

ORDINANCE EXPRESSLY REPEALED OR MODIFIED.

PEIRIS v. PEIRIS SLR 1978-79, Vol :2,

Page: 55

HATTON NATIONAL BANK v. SILVA AND ANOTHER SLR 1999, Vol :3, Page:

113

MUTTIAH CHETTY v. DON MARTINES NLR Vol :10, Page: 175

DAVITH APPUHAMY v. PERERA NLR Vol :11, Page: 150

HAGENBECK et al v. VAITILINGAM et al., NLR Vol :18, Page: 1

MEINKHAMY v. PINHAMY NLR Vol :23, Page: 189

ABDUL CADER v. RAWTHER NLR Vol :29, Page: 326

http://www.lawlanka.com/lal/slrDetailReportView?caseId=1978-79SLR2V55

http://www.lawlanka.com/lal/slrDetailReportView?caseId=1999SLR3V113

http://www.lawlanka.com/lal/nlrDetailReportView?caseId=NLR10V175





INTERPRETATION The following words and expressions in this Ordinance shall have the meanings hereby assigned to them,

unless there is something in the subject or context repugnant thereto;

"action" is a proceeding for the prevention or redress of a wrong;

[2,20 of 1977]

"Attorney-General" includes the Solicitor-General, the Additional Solicitor-General and any State

Counsel specially authorized by the Attorney-General to represent the Attorney-General;

"cause of action" is the wrong for the prevention or redress of which an action may be brought, and

includes the denial of a right, the refusal to fulfill an obligation, the neglect to perform a duty and the

infliction of an affirmative injury;

"civil court" means a court in which civil actions may be brought;

"counsel" means an attorney-at-law instructed by a registered attorney;

"court" means a Judge empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges empowered by

law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially;

"decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication upon any right claimed or defence set up in a

civil court, when such adjudication, so far as regards the court expressing it, decides the action or

appeal; (An order rejecting a plaint is a decree within this definition.)

[2,79 of 1988]

"Fiscal" includes a Deputy Fiscal

"foreign court" means a court situate beyond the limits of, and not having authority in, Sri Lanka;

"foreign judgment" means the judgment of a foreign court;

[2,20 of 1977]

"Judge" means the presiding officer of a court and includes Judges of the Supreme Court and of the

Court of Appeal, District Judges, Judges of Family Courts and Judges of Primary Courts;

"judgment" means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order;

"judgment-creditor" and " decree-holder " mean any person in whose favor a decree or order capable of

execution has been made, and include any transferee of such decree or order;

"judgment-debtor" means any person against whom a decree or order capable of execution has been

made;

[2,20 of 1977]

"legal document" includes all processes, pleadings, petitions, affidavits, notices, motions and other

documents, proceedings, and written communications;

"order" means the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree;

"original court " includes District Courts, Family Courts and Primary Courts;

[2,20 of 1977]

"Public Trustee" means the Public Trustee of Sri Lanka appointed under the Public Trustee Ordinance

and includes a Deputy Public Trustee or any other state officer generally or specially authorized by the

Public Trustee to act on his behalf;

"recognized agent" includes the persons designated under that name in section 25 and no others;

[2,20 of 1977]

" registered attorney " means an attorney-at-law appointed under Chapter V by a party or his recognized

agent to act on his behalf;

[2,20 of 1977]

"Registrar" in relation to a court - includes an Additional, Deputy or Assistant Registrar;

"signed" includes "marked" when the person making the mark is unable to write;

[2,20 of 1977]

"the Island" and "this Island" means respectively the Island of Sri lanka;

"written" and "writing" include "printed" and "print" and "lithographed" and "lithograph" respectively.

PEIRIS v. PEIRIS SLR 1978-79, Vol :2, Page: 55

UDESHI AND OTHERS v. MATHER SLR 1988, Vol :1, Page: 12

PARAMANATHAN AND ANOTHER v. KODITUWAKKUARACHCHI SLR 1988, Vol :1, Page: 315

MANAPERI SOMAWATHIE v. BUWANESWARI SLR 1990, Vol :1, Page: 223

PILAPITIYA v. BUDDADASA AND ANOTHER SLR 1990, Vol :2, Page: 186

JINADASA AND ANOTHER v. SAM SILVA AND OTHERS SLR 1994, Vol :1, Page: 232

URBAN COUNCIL, MORATUWA AND SERASINGHE v. CEYLON PAINT

INDUSTRIES

SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 191

G.T.E. DIRECTORIES LANKA (PVT) LTD. v. MUKTHAR MARIKKAR AND

ANOTHER

SLR 1998, Vol :3, Page: 180

BRUNSWICK EXPORTS LTD. v. HATTON NATIONAL BANK LTD. SLR 1999, Vol :1, Page: 219

EKSITH FERNANDO v. MANAWADU AND OTHERS (ST. THOMAS'

COLLEGE CASES)

SLR 2000, Vol :1, Page: 78

NARENDRA v. SEYLAN MERCHANT BANK LTD. AND OTHERS SLR 2003, Vol :2, Page: 1

PIYADASA v. SUDU BANDA SLR 2003, Vol :2, Page: 202

SHAW WALLACE AND HEDGES LTD V NIRMAL FERNANDO AND OTHERS SLR 2003, Vol :2, Page: 366

NANAYAKKARA AND OTHERS v. SIRISENA SLR 2003, Vol :3, Page: 60

SEYLAN BANK LTD V MANCHESTER YARN AND THREAD (PVT) LTD SLR 2004, Vol :3, Page: 303

DISSANAYAKE VS HEMANTHA SLR 2006, Vol :2, Page: 12

PIERIS v. PERERA NLR Vol :10, Page: 41

PLESS POL v. LADY DE SOYSA et al. NLR Vol :15, Page: 57

LOWE v. FERNANDO NLR Vol :16, Page: 398

NANNITAMBY v. VAYTILINGAM et al., NLR Vol :20, Page: 33

RANASINGHE v. PERERA NLR Vol :24, Page: 201

ABEYSUNDERA v. BABUNA et al. NLR Vol :26, Page: 459

ARULANANTHAM et al v. ATTORNEY GENERAL NLR Vol :53, Page: 364

SELVAM, A.G. v. KUDDIPILLAI, N. NLR Vol :55, Page: 426

SILVERLINE BUS CO., LTD. v. KANDY OMNIBUS CO., LTD. NLR Vol :58, Page: 193

LADAMUTTU PILLAI v. ATTORNEY GENERAL NLR Vol :59, Page: 313

SIRIPALA v. MAGIE NONA NLR Vol :59, Page: 433

TENNEKOON v. DURAISAMY NLR Vol :59, Page: 481

CROOS v. GOONEWARDENE HAMINE NLR Vol :5, Page: 259

AZIZ v. THONDAMAN NLR Vol :61, Page: 217


































MUDALIGE v. WILLIAM SILVA NLR Vol :61, Page: 296

MEYAPPAN v. MANCHANAYAKE NLR Vol :62, Page: 529

SLEBERT v. NEW ASIA TRADING CO., LTD. NLR Vol :66, Page: 460

C.Y.S.PERERA v. THILLAIRAJAH NLR Vol :69, Page: 237

UNITED ENGINEERING WORKERS' UNION v. DEVANAYAGAM NLR Vol :69, Page: 289

K.THIAGARAJAH v. P.KARTHIGESU NLR Vol :69, Page: 73

PERIS v. PERERA NLR Vol :6, Page: 230

CEYLON ESTATE AGENCY AND WAREHOUSING CO. LTD. v. DE ALVIS. NLR Vol :70, Page: 31

NAVARATNAM v. SIRIWARDENA NLR Vol :70, Page: 361

MALIBAN BISCUIT MANUFACTORIES LTD. v. SUBRAMANIAM NLR Vol :74, Page: 337

MORAIS v. VICTORIA NLR Vol :75, Page: 145

BALASUNDARAM v. RAMAN NLR Vol :76, Page: 289

RAMAN CHETTY v. ABDUL RASAC NLR Vol :7, Page: 345

EMALISHAMY v. EGO APPU NLR Vol :7, Page: 38

PLESS POL v. LADY DE SOYSA et al., NLR Vol :9, Page: 316

6. Action

6. Every application to a court for relief or remedy obtainable through the exercise of the court's power

or authority, or otherwise to invite its interference, constitutes an action.


ANOTHER

SLR 1998, Vol :3, Page: 180


SADHANA DHARMABANDU VS MALLIKA HOMES LTD AND OTHERS SLR 2009, Vol :1, Page: 151

JAYAWARDENE V. OBEYSEKERE AND 5 OTHERS SLR 2011, Vol :1, Page: 349

RANASINGHE v. PERERA NLR Vol :24, Page: 201

ABEYSUNDERA v. BABUNA et al. NLR Vol :26, Page: 459

SILVERLINE BUS CO., LTD. v. KANDY OMNIBUS CO., LTD. NLR Vol :58, Page: 193



























MUDIYANSE v. PEMAWATHIE NLR Vol :64, Page: 542

UNITED ENGINEERING WORKERS' UNION v. DEVANAYAGAM NLR Vol :69, Page: 289

MARTIN SILVA v. MAHASOON NLR Vol :70, Page: 6

FERNANDO v. FERNANDO NLR Vol :72, Page: 174

MALIBAN BISCUIT MANUFACTORIES LTD. v. SUBRAMANIAM NLR Vol :74, Page: 337

RAMAN CHETTY v. ABDUL RASAC NLR Vol :7, Page: 345

7. The procedure of an action may be either " regular " or " summary ".

Illustrations

In actions of which the procedure is regular, the person against whom the application is made is called

upon to formally state his answer to the case which is alleged against him in the application before any

question of fact is entertained by the court, or its discretion thereon is in any degree exercised.

In actions of which the procedure is summary, the applicant simultaneously with preferring his

application supports with proper evidence the statement of fact made therein; and if the court in its

discretion considers that a prima facie case is thus made out

(a) either the order sought is immediately passed against the defendant before he has been afforded an

opportunity of opposing it, but subject to the expressed qualification that it will only lake effect in the

event of his not showing any good cause against it on a day appointed therein for the purpose;

(b) or a day is appointed by the court for entertaining the matter of the application on the evidence

furnished, and notice is given to the defendant that he will be heard in opposition to it on that day if he

thinks proper to come before the court for that purpose.


8. Procedure of action to be ordinarily regular. [2,53 of 1980]

Procedure of action to be ordinarily regular.

Save and except actions in which it is by this Ordinance or any other law specially provided that

proceedings may be taken by way of summary procedure, every action shall commence and proceed by

a course of regular procedure, as hereinafter prescribed.












STASSEN EXPORTS LTD. VS. REGISTRAR OF PATENTS AND TRADE

MARKS AND OTHERS

SLR 2006, Vol :1, Page: 340

CHANDRAWATHIE VS. WIMALADASA AND OTHERS SLR 2006, Vol :1, Page: 4


ROWEL v. JAYAWARDENE NLR Vol :14, Page: 47

MOLDRICH v. CORNELIS et al. NLR Vol :14, Page: 97

PERERA v. FERNANDO et al NLR Vol :17, Page: 300

WICKREMASURIYA v. MUDIANSE NLR Vol :31, Page: 344


JEGANATHAN v. RAMANATHAN NLR Vol :64, Page: 289

MUDIYANSE v. PEMAWATHIE NLR Vol :64, Page: 542

CHARTERED BANK v. DE SILVA NLR Vol :67, Page: 135

WIJEWARDENE v. GOMES NLR Vol :70, Page: 97

Institution of actions: in what court. 9. Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, action shall be instituted in the

court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction

(a) a party defendant resides; or

(b) the land in respect of which the action is brought lies or is situate in whole or in part; or

(c) the cause of action arises; or

When one of two or more courts may entertain an action.

When it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more

courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those courts may, if satisfied that there is ground

for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect, and thereupon proceed to entertain and

dispose of any action relating to that property; and its decree in the action shall have the same effect

as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction:

Provided that the action is one with respect to which the court is competent as regards the nature and

value of the action to exercise jurisdiction.

SOMASIRI v. CEYLON PETROLEUM CORPORATION SLR 1992, Vol :1, Page: 39

BLUE DIAMONDS LIMITED v. AMSTERDAM ROTTERDAM BANK M.V. AND

ANOTHER (AMRO BANK CASE)

SLR 1993, Vol :2, Page: 249

CHITAMBARA NADAR AND ANOTHER OF COLOMBO v. ELASTO LIMITED

OF BENTOTA

SLR 1994, Vol :2, Page: 325

MARTIN SILVA AND ANOTHER v. CENTRAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY

BUREAU AND ANOTHER

SLR 2003, Vol :2, Page: 228

ARIYARATNE vs PREMADASA SLR 2006, Vol :3, Page: 161






















DAVITH APPUHAMY v. PERERA NLR Vol :11, Page: 150

LALLTETT v. NEGRIS & Co NLR Vol :14, Page: 247

PLESS POL v. LADY DE SOYSA et al. NLR Vol :15, Page: 57

SITHAMPARAM v. PONAN NLR Vol :19, Page: 33

HUSSAN v. PEIRIS et al., NLR Vol :34, Page: 238

VYTHILINGAM v. ARUNASALEM NLR Vol :53, Page: 417

MILLER v. MURRAY NLR Vol :54, Page: 25

NALLATHAMBY et al., v. SOMASUNDERAM-KURUKKAL NLR Vol :57, Page: 166

SOWDOONA v. ABDUL MUEES NLR Vol :57, Page: 75

PELIS v. SILVA NLR Vol :60, Page: 289

COMMISSIONER OF AGRARIAN SERVICES v. KUMARASAMY NLR Vol :62, Page: 574

TENNE v. EKANAYAKE NLR Vol :63, Page: 544

PONNUTHURAI v. JUHAR NLR Vol :66, Page: 375


GUNAWARDENE v. URBAN COUNCIL NLR Vol :73, Page: 233

ANIS v. SILVA NLR Vol :73, Page: 309

PERERA v. CHELLIAH NLR Vol :74, Page: 61

RANGHAMI v. KIRIHAMY NLR Vol :7, Page: 357

WRIGHT v. WRIGHT NLR Vol :9, Page: 31

PLESS POL v. LADY DE SOYSA et al., NLR Vol :9, Page: 316

10. Of application for withdrawal and transfer of action. [3,20 1977]

10. Any of the parties to an action which is pending in any original court may, before trial, and after

notice in writing to the other parties of his intention so to do, apply to the Court of Appeal by motion,

which shall be supported by affidavit setting out the grounds on which it is based, for the withdrawal of

such action from the court in which it is pending and for the transfer of it for trial to any other court

competent to try the same in respect of its nature and the amount or value of its subject-matter. And

the Court of Appeal may, on any such application after hearing such of the parties as desire to be heard,

and on being satisfied that such withdrawal and transfer are desirable for any of the following reasons;

(a) that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in any particular court or place; or

(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or

(c) that it is expedient on any other ground,

Withdraw any such action pending in any such court, and transfer it for trial to any other such court as

aforesaid, upon any terms that the Court of Appeal shall think fit. When the action might have been

instituted in any one of several courts, the balance of convenience only shall be deemed sufficient cause

for such withdrawal and transfer to one of the alternative courts.





















Stamp duty.

In no case in which any action is so transferred as aforesaid from one court to another shall any stamp

fee be leviable in the court to which the action is transferred on any pleading or exhibit on which the

proper stamp fee has been paid in the court from which the action is so transferred.

SIVASUBRAMANIAM v. SIVASUBRAMANIAM SLR 1980, Vol :2, Page: 58

JAYASINGHE VS DASSANAYAKE AND ANOTHER SLR 2006, Vol :3, Page: 346

RATNAWATHIE v. SAMARASINGHE NLR Vol :68, Page: 211

SOMAWATHIE v. DANNY NLR Vol :76 PAGE 571

11. Plaintiffs. 11. All persons may be joined as plaintiffs in whom the right to any relief claimed is alleged to exist,

whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of the same cause of action. And judgment

may be given for such one or more of the plaintiffs as may be found to be entitled to relief for such relief

as he or they may be entitled to, without any amendment of the plaint for that purpose. But the

defendant though unsuccessful, shall be entitled to his costs occasioned by so joining any person who is

not found entitled to relief, unless the court in disposing of the costs of the action otherwise directs.

ADLIN FERNANDO AND ANOTHER v. LIONEL FERNANDO AND OTHERS SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 25

MASEENA v. SAHUD AND ANOTHER SLR 2003, Vol :3, Page: 109

IBRAHIM DIDI et al. v. ALLI DIDI NLR Vol :13, Page: 181

MUTTU MENIKA v. FERNANDO et al., NLR Vol :15, Page: 429

FERNANDO, B.J. v. SUNTHARY PILLAI NLR Vol :45, Page: 126

THANGAMMAH v. KANAGASABAI NLR Vol :51, Page: 500

WEERAPPERUMA v. DE SILVA NLR Vol :61, Page: 481

D. D. L. KALUARACHCHI . v. CEYLON TRANSPORT BOARD NLR Vol :76, Page: 173

DON SIMON APPUHAMI et al., v. MARTHELIS ROSA NLR Vol :9, Page: 68

12. Where joint tenants or tenants in common

12. Where two or more persons are entitled to the possession of immovable property as joint tenants or tenants

in common, one or more of them may maintain an action in respect of his or their undivided shares in the

property in any case where such an action might be maintained by all.

SUSIL PERERA v. KELLY AND OTHERS SLR 2002, Vol :3, Page:

163

ABREW V. SEKERAM SLR 2003, Vol :1, Page:

381












http://www.lawlanka.com/lal/nlrDetailReportView?caseId=NLR76V173(2)




WALKER & SONS CO. LTD V MASOOD SLR 2004, Vol :3, Page:

195

IBRAHIM DIDI et al. v. ALLI DIDI NLR Vol :13, Page: 181

IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA, LTD. v. SILVA et al., NLR Vol :34, Page: 346

ZEINUDEEN v. SAMSADEEN et al., NLR Vol :41, Page: 65

ROCKLAND DISTILLERIES v. AZEEZ NLR Vol :52, Page: 490


SILVA v. SINNO APPU NLR Vol :7, Page: 5

13. Substituted and added plaintiffs.

13. Where an action has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff, or where it is doubtful

whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the court may at any stage of the action, if

satisfied that the action has been so commenced through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the

determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person or persons, with his or their

consent, to be substituted or added as plaintiff or plaintiffs, upon such terms as the court thinks just.

IRANGANIE v. ABEYRATNE AND OTHERS SLR 1991, Vol :2, Page:

183

SEYLAN BANK PLC V LEBBE MOHOMED RAZIK SLR 2009, Vol :2, Page:

139

NORTHWAY v. NAATCHIA NLR Vol :15, Page: 30

MARICAR v. ISMAIL NLR Vol :16, Page: 362

KANDASWAMY v. SINNATAMBY NLR Vol :26, Page: 63

ARNOLIS v. LEWISHAMY NLR Vol :2, Page: 222

MATTHES v. ROTTAN NLR Vol :2, Page: 366

RAMAN CHETTY v. SHAWE et at., NLR Vol :33, Page: 16

SIRIWARDANE v. AMUNUGAMA GUNARATNA THERO NLR Vol :66, Page: 383

D. D. L. KALUARACHCHI . v. CEYLON TRANSPORT

BOARD

NLR Vol :76, Page: 173

GORDON BROOKE v. PEERA VEDA NLR Vol :9, Page: 302

14. Defendants.

All persons may be joined as defendants against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether

jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of the same cause of action. And judgment may be given

against such one or more of the defendants as may be found to be liable, according to their respective liabilities,

without any amendment.


MACKIE & SONS v. MACKIE & ANOTHER SLR 1999, Vol :3, Page: 386






















JAGODA V TUDAWE SLR 2004, Vol :2, Page: 147

COREA v. PIERIS NLR Vol :10, Page: 321

RATWATTE v. NUGAWELA NLR Vol :15, Page: 1

AIYAMPILLAI v. VAIRAVANATHA KURRUKEL NLR Vol :16, Page: 231

LOWE v. FERNANDO NLR Vol :16, Page: 398

LONDON AND LANCASHIRE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. P & O

COMPANY et al.,


APPUHAMY v. APPUHAMY NLR Vol :21, Page: 436

RAMEN CHETTY v. MACKWOOD NLR Vol :24, Page: 73

KANAGASABAPATHY v. KANAGASABAI et al., NLR Vol :25, Page: 173

FERNANDO v. PALANIAPPA CHETTY NLR Vol :28, Page: 273

MUTTIAH CHETTY v. DE SILVA et al., NLR Vol :2, Page: 109

FERNANDO v. DE SILVA NLR Vol :2, Page: 223

FERNANDO et al., v. FERNANDO NLR Vol :39, Page: 145

ROCHE ET AL. v. KEERTHIRATNE ET AL ., NLR Vol :46, Page: 97

PODIHAMY ET AL v. SEIMON APPU NLR Vol :47, Page: 503


ARULANANTHAM et al v. ATTORNEY GENERAL NLR Vol :53, Page: 364

JUHAR et al v. RAMANATHAN NLR Vol :53, Page: 454


JAYASEKERA v. SINNA KARUPPAN NLR Vol :69, Page: 88

PONNUDURAI v. SITHAMPARAPILLAI NLR Vol :71, Page: 315



SIRISENA AND OTHERS v. HONOURABLE.H.S.R.B.

KOBBEKADUWA,MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND LANDS


14A.Substitution where person against whom a right to any relief is alleged to exist dies and the right to sue for relief survives.

(1) Where a person against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist is dead and the right to sue for

such relief survives, the person in whom such right is alleged to exist, may make an application by way of

summary procedure supported by affidavit to the court in which an action for the same may be instituted, in

the following manner:-

(a) Where such person has died intestate leaving an estate, specifying the name, description, and place of

abode of any person whom he alleges to be the legal representative, as defined in section 394 (2), of the

deceased and whom he desires to be made the defendant in the proposed action in place of the deceased.

Such application shall also specify the name, description, and place of abode of the person or persons whom

the applicant alleges to be the other heir or heirs of the deceased; or



























(b) Where probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of the deceased has not been issued or

its issue is likely to be unduly delayed, specifying, the name, description, and place of abode of any person

whom he alleges to be the person to whom probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of the

deceased would ordinarily be issued and whom he desires to be made the defendant in the proposed action in

place of the deceased. Such application shall also specify the name, description, and place of abode of the

person or persons whom the applicant alleged to be the heir or heirs of the deceased.

(2) Upon receipt of an application under paragraph (a) of subsection (1), and the court where it is satisfied

that there are grounds therefor, and, after the issue of notice on the representative named in such application

and such other persons, if any, and after causing notice of such application, (in the form No.2A in the First

Schedule) to be advertised in a local newspaper to be selected by the court, or by such other mode of

advertisement in lieu of such publication as to the court seems sufficient, and after such inquiry as the court

may consider necessary and upon such terms as it thinks fit, the court may order that such representative or

such other person as the court may consider fit be appointed in place of the deceased, for the institution of

such action:

Provided, that the person to be so appointed in place of the deceased may object that he is not the legal

representative of the deceased or that he should not be appointed in place of the deceased.

(3) Upon receipt of an application under paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the court may, where it is satisfied

that probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of the deceased has not been issued or is likely

to be unduly delayed, and, after the issue of notice on the person alleged in such application to be the person

to whom probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of the deceased would ordinarily be issued

and such other persons, if any, causing notice of such application, (in the form No. 2A in the First Schedule)

to be advertised in a local newspaper to be selected by the court or by some other mode of advertisement in

lieu of such publication as to the court seems sufficient, and after such inquiry as the court may consider

necessary and upon such terms as it thinks fit, order that the person, who appears to the court to be the

person to whom probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of the deceased would ordinarily

be issued, be appointed in place of the deceased, for the institution of such action:

Provided, that the person to be so appointed may object that he is not the person to whom probate of the will

or letters of administration to the estate of the deceased would ordinarily be issued or that he should not be

appointed in place of the deceased.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) or subsection (3), the court may make an order under

any one of those subsections, only where-

(a) it is satisfied that the delay in the institution of the action would render such action not maintainable by

reason of the provisions of the Prescription Ordinance; or

(b) a period of six months had lapsed after the death of the deceased.

(5) Where after an order appointing a representative in place of the deceased has been made under subsection

(2) or subsection (3) and an action instituted against such person in place of such deceased, an executor of

the will, or an administrator of the estate, as the case may be, of such deceased, is appointed in proceedings

instituted under Chapter XXXVIII of this Code, such executor or administrator shall, on the application by way

of summary procedure, supported by affidavit, made by the plaintiff or any other party to such action or by

such executor or administrator, be substituted in place of the person appointed under subsection (2) or

subsection (3), and the action shall thereupon proceed in the same manner as if such executor or administrator

had originally been made a defendant, and had been a party to the previous proceedings in the action.

NILAMDEEN v. DAYANANDA AND OTHERS SLR 2002, Vol :1, Page:

160

HARIPALA AND OTHERS VS MALLIKA FERNANDO AND OTHERS SLR 2005, Vol :1, Page:

417

DARLEY BUTLER & Co. Ltd v ANOOS AND OTHERS SLR 2008, Vol :2, Page:

149

15. Who may be joined as parties defendant.

The plaintiff may, at his option, join as parties to the same action all or any of the persons severally, or jointly

and severally, liable on any one contract, including parties to bills of exchange and promissory notes.

THE MAHAKANDE HOUSING COMPANY LTD. v. DUHILAMOMAL AND

OTHERS

SLR 1981, Vol :2, Page: 232

FERNANDO v. PERERA NLR Vol :21, Page: 94

APPUHAMY v. WALKER et al., NLR Vol :22, Page: 313

MUTTIAH CHETTY v. DE SILVA et al., NLR Vol :2, Page: 109



16. Where numerous parties, one may sure or defend for all. Notice.

Where there are numerous parties having a common interest in bringing or defending an action, one or more

of such parties may, with the permission of the defend for all. court, sue or be sued, or may defend in such an

action on behalf of all parties so interested.

But the court shall in such case give, at the expense of the party applying so to sue or defend, notice of the

institution of the action to all such parties, either by personal service or (if from the number of parties or any

other cause such service is not reasonably practicable, then) by public advertisement, as the court in each case

may direct.











RANASINGHE v. NANDANIE ABEYDEERA SLR 1997, Vol :3, Page:

401

PINTO v. TRELLEBORG LANKA (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER SLR 2003, Vol :3, Page:

214

FELIX PREMAWARDANE VS BASNAYAKE AND OTHERS SLR 2005, Vol :3, Page:

205

RANJITH DE SILVA vs DAYANANDA AND OTHERS SLR 2006, Vol :1, Page:

305

SUGATHAANANDA THERA VS. AJlTH BODINAGODA AND OTHERS SLR 2006, Vol :3, Page:

315

READ v. SAMSUDIN NLR Vol :1, Page: 292



JAYAWARDENE v. THE BAPTIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY et al., NLR Vol :25, Page: 97


SILVA v. LOW-COUNTRY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION NLR Vol :39, Page: 228

SUPPIAH PILLAI et al., v. RAMANATHAN et al., NLR Vol :39, Page: 90

CAROLINE SOYSA v. LADY RATWATTE NLR Vol :45, Page: 553

KANDASAMY v. KUMARASEKARAM NLR Vol :63, Page: 193


17. Misjoinder not to defeat action.

No action shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court may in every

action deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually

before it.

Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to enable plaintiffs to join in respect of distinct causes of action.

If the consent of anyone who ought to be joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant,

the reasons therefor being stated in the plaint.

WAHARAKA ALIAS MORATOTA SOBHITA THERO v. AMUNUGAMA

RATNAPALA THERO

SLR 1981, Vol :1, Page: 201

COLGAN AND OHTERS v. UDESHI AND OTHERS SLR 1996, Vol :2, Page: 220

CHARLES PERERA AND ANOTHER v KOTIGALA. SLR 2004, Vol :2, Page: 67

HAPUARATCHI AND ANOTHER VS DHANAPALA AND ANOTHER SLR 2005, Vol :3, Page: 141

JAYAMPATHI AND ANOTHER v KUDABANDA SLR 2008, Vol :2, Page: 289

JAYAMAHA et al., v. SINGAPPU NLR Vol :13, Page: 348























MADAR SAIBO et al v. SIRAJUDEEN et al NLR Vol :17, Page: 97

RALPH MACDONALD & CO. v. THE COLOMBO HOTELS COMPANY NLR Vol :19, Page: 109

HEENHAMI v. MOHOTIHAMI NLR Vol :19, Page: 235

ABDUL CADER ET AL v. AHAMADU LEBBE MARIKAR ET AL NLR Vol :37, Page: 257


SINNATHAMBY et al., v. KANDIAH et al., NLR Vol :56, Page: 535


T.A.DINGIRI APPUHAMY v. TALAKOLAWEWE PANGANANDA THERO NLR Vol :67, Page: 89


WERAGAMA v. BANDARA NLR Vol :77, Page: 289

DON SIMON APPUHAMI et al., v. MARTHELIS ROSA NLR Vol :9, Page: 68

18.Parties improperly joined may be struck out.

Addition of parties.

(1) The court may on or before the hearing, upon the application of either party, and on such terms as the

court thinks just, order that the name of any party, whether as plaintiff or as defendant improperly joined, be

struck out; and the court may at any time, either upon or without such application, and on such terms as the

court thinks just, order that any plaintiff be made a defendant, or that any defendant be made a plaintiff, and

that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose

presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to

adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in that action, be added.

(2) Every order for such amendment or for alteration of parties shall state the facts and reasons which together

form the ground on which the order is made. And in the case of a party being added, the added party or parties

shall be named, with the designation " added party ", in all pleadings or processes or papers entitled in the

action and made after the date of the order.

ARUMUGAM COOMARASWAMY v. ANDRIS APPUHAMY AND OTHERS SLR 1985, Vol :2, Page: 219

EUGIN FERNANDO v. CHARLES PERERA AND OTHERS SLR 1988, Vol :2, Page: 228

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER v. SIRISENA SLR 1990, Vol :1, Page: 44

IRANGANIE v. ABEYRATNE AND OTHERS SLR 1991, Vol :2, Page: 183


ROBERT DASSANAYAKE AND ANOTHER v. PEOPLE'S BANK AND ANOTHER SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 320

COLOMBO SHIPPING CO. LTD. v. CHIRAYU CLOTHING (PVT) LTD. SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 97

AMEEN v. SALAHUDEEN & OTHERS SLR 1998, Vol :3, Page: 185

FERNANDO v. WICKREMASINGHE SLR 1998, Vol :3, Page: 37





















PANADURA FINANCE & ENTERPRISES LTD. v. PERERA AND ANOTHER SLR 1999, Vol :1, Page: 358

NAJIMDEEN AND OTHERS v. NAGESHWARI AND OTHERS SLR 1999, Vol :3, Page: 123

ROHANA v. SHYAMA ATTYGALA &OTHERS SLR 1999, Vol :3, Page: 381

MACKIE & SONS v. MACKIE & ANOTHER SLR 1999, Vol :3, Page: 386

HILDA ENID PERERA v. SOMAWATHIE LOKUGE AND ANOTHER SLR 2000, Vol :3, Page: 200

FERNANDO v. DE SILVA AND OTHERS SLR 2000, Vol :3, Page: 29

PARAMALINGAM v. SIRISENA AND ANOTHER SLR 2001, Vol :2, Page: 239

KEERTHIWANSA v. URBAN COUNCIL HORANA AND 3 OTHERS SLR 2001, Vol :3, Page: 252

SENEVIRATNE v. FERNANDO AND OTHERS SLR 2001, Vol :3, Page: 72

KULARATNE v. SAMARAWICKREMA AND ANOTHER SLR 2003, Vol :2, Page: 152

JUDUWARA & OTHERS . V L.B. FINANCE CO. LTD. SLR 2004, Vol :2, Page: 151

KAMALAWATHIE AND OTHERS VS. FERNANDO AND ANOTHER SLR 2005, Vol :2, Page: 349

DORIS SIRIWARDANE AND OTHERS VS DE SILVA SLR 2006, Vol :2, Page: 309

KAROUS VS.DHARMARATHANA THERO AND OTHERS SLR 2006, Vol :2, Page: 320

SITHY MAKEENA AND OTHERS VS. KURAISHA AND OTHERS SLR 2006, Vol :2, Page: 341

DARLEY BUTLER & Co. Ltd v ANOOS AND OTHERS SLR 2008, Vol :2, Page: 149

JAYAMPATHI AND ANOTHER v KUDABANDA SLR 2008, Vol :2, Page: 289

MASTER DIVERS (PVT.) LTD., VS. ANUSHA KARUNARATNE AND OTHERS SLR 2010, Vol :1, Page: 403

FERNANDO V. TENNAKOON SLR 2010, Vol :2, Page: 22

COREA v. PIERIS NLR Vol :10, Page: 321

COREA v. PIERIS et al., NLR Vol :13, Page: 212

JAYAMAHA et al., v. SINGAPPU NLR Vol :13, Page: 348

CAROLIS APPU v. DIONIS APPU et al. NLR Vol :14, Page: 390

RALPH MACDONALD & CO. v. THE COLOMBO HOTELS COMPANY NLR Vol :19, Page: 109


MEIDEEN v. BANDA (WALATAPPA CHETTY, Claimant) NLR Vol :1, Page: 51

SUPPIAH v. CROOS NLR Vol :22, Page: 97

BANDA v. DHARMARATNE NLR Vol :24, Page: 210



HORATALA v. SANCHI et al., NLR Vol :26, Page: 426

GOVERNMENT AGENT, SABARAGAMUWA v. ASIRWATHAN et al., NLR Vol :29, Page: 367

FERNANDO et al., v. ARNOLIS NLR Vol :32, Page: 328


DE SILVA v. NONOHAMY et al., NLR Vol :34, Page: 113

KUMARIHAMY v. DISSANAYAKE et al NLR Vol :37, Page: 345

THANGAMMA v. NAGALINGAM NLR Vol :39, Page: 143






































ARUMOGAM v. VAITHIALINGAM NLR Vol :43, Page: 493


SINNALEBBE v. MUSTAPHA NLR Vol :51, Page: 541

NALLAKARUPPEN CHETTIAR et al. v. HEPPONSTALL NLR Vol :52, Page: 396


IBRAHIM SAIBO, A.M.M. v. MANSOOR, S.D.M. NLR Vol :54, Page: 217

DON ALWIS v. VILLAGE COMMITTEE OF HIRIPITIYA NLR Vol :54, Page: 225

SINNATHAMBY et al., v. KANDIAH et al., NLR Vol :56, Page: 535


THE UNITED INDIA FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., v.

WEINMAN



PERERA v. DINGIRI MENIKA NLR Vol :63, Page: 169

JAYASUNDERA v. WEERAPPERUMA NLR Vol :64, Page: 265


KANAGAMMAH v. KUMARAKULASINGHAM NLR Vol :66, Page: 529

CHARTERED BANK v. DE SILVA NLR Vol :67, Page: 135

PEERIS v. KIRILAMAYA NLR Vol :71, Page: 52

GOVERNMENT AGENT KALUTARA v. GUNARATNA NLR Vol :71, Page: 58

THEIVANAIPILLAI v. NALLIAH NLR Vol :74, Page: 307


AHAMADO LEBBE v. MARIS APPU et al., NLR Vol :9, Page: 289

19. Intervention not otherwise allowed.

No person shall be allowed to intervene in a pending action otherwise than in pursuance of, and in conformity

with, the provisions of the last preceding section. And no person shall be added as plaintiff, or as the next

friend of a plaintiff, without his own consent thereto;

Except in under section 16.

Provided however that any person on cases whose behalf an action is instituted or under section defended may

apply to the 16. court to be made a party, and all parties whose names are so added as defendants shall be

served with a summons in manner hereinafter mentioned, and the proceedings as against them shall be

deemed to have begun only on the service of such summons.























COLOMBO SHIPPING CO. LTD. v. CHIRAYU

CLOTHING (PVT) LTD.

SLR 1995, Vol :2,

Page: 97

FERNANDO V. TENNAKOON SLR 2010, Vol :2,

Page: 22

MAPALATHAN v. ELAYAVAN NLR Vol :41, Page:

115

D. D. L. KALUARACHCHI . v. CEYLON

TRANSPORT BOARD

NLR Vol :76, Page:

173

20. Conduct of the action.

The court may give the conduct of the action to such plaintiff as it deems action proper.

No cases.

21. Amendment of plaint.

Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the court direct otherwise, be amended in such manner

as may be necessary, and a copy of the amended plaint shall be served on the new defendant and on the

original defendants.

HUSSAIN v. WADOOD AND

ANOTHER SLR 1984, Vol :2, Page: 24

COLOMBO SHIPPING CO. LTD. v.

CHIRAYU CLOTHING (PVT) LTD. SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 97

ROHANA v. SHYAMA ATTYGALA

&OTHERS SLR 1999, Vol :3, Page: 381

SENEVIRATNE v. FERNANDO AND

OTHERS SLR 2001, Vol :3, Page: 72

NIMALRAJ VS. THARMARAJAH AND

OTHERS SLR 2005, Vol :3, Page: 309

ATUKORALE v. SAMYNATHAN NLR Vol :41, Page: 165

THOMAS SILVA v. HEMALATHA

HAMINE NLR Vol :53, Page: 18




















LEBBE v. SANDANAM NLR Vol :64, Page: 461

D. D. L. KALUARACHCHI . v. CEYLON

TRANSPORT BOARD NLR Vol :76, Page: 173

22. Objections for non-joinder or misjoinder to be taken before hearing.

All objections for want of parties, or for joinder of parties who have no interest in the action, or for misjoinder

as co- plaintiffs or co-defendants, shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases before

the hearing. And any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived by the defendant.

ADLIN FERNANDO AND ANOTHER v. LIONEL FERNANDO AND

OTHERS

SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 25

SUSIL PERERA v. KELLY AND OTHERS SLR 2002, Vol :3, Page: 163


JOHN SINNO v. JULIS APPU NLR Vol :10, Page: 351



THE BANK OF CHETTINAD. LTD. v. THAMBIAH et al., NLR Vol :35, Page: 190

SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 25












23.Plaintiffs (or defendants) may authorize one of them to act for them.

When there are more plaintiffs than one, any one or more of them may be authorized by any other of them

to appear, plead, or act for such other in any proceeding under this Ordinance; and in like manner, when there

are more defendants than one, any one or more of them may be authorized by any other of them to appear,

plead, or act for such other in any such proceeding. The authority shall be in writing signed by the party giving

it, and shall be filed in court.

KANAGASUNDERAM v. SINNIAH NLR Vol :32, Page: 43

24.Appearances may be by party in person, his recognized agent, or attorney-at-law.

Any appearance, application, or act in or to any court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by

a party to an action or appeal in such court, except only such appearances, applications, or acts as by any law

for the time being in force only attorneys-at-law are authorized to make or do, and except when by any such

law otherwise expressly provided, may be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent,

or by an attorney-at-law duly appointed by the party or such agent to act on behalf of such party :

Provided that any such appearance shall be made by the party in person, if the court so directs. An attorney-

at-law instructed by a registered attorney for this purpose, represents the registered attorney in court.

GANGULWITIGAMA PANNALOKA THERO v. COLOMBO SARANANKARA

THERO AND OTHERS

SLR 1983, Vol :1, Page: 332


HAMEED v. DEEN AND OTHERS SLR 1988, Vol :2, Page: 1

JINADASA AND ANOTHER v. SAM SILVA AND OTHERS SLR 1994, Vol :1, Page: 232

SHAFEER v. DHARMAPALA SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 181

FERNANDO v. SYBIL FERNANDO AND 2 OTHERS SLR 1996, Vol :2, Page: 169

FERNANDO v. SYBIL FERNANDO AND OTHERS SLR 1997, Vol :3, Page: 1

FERNANDO v. CEYLON BREWERYS LTD. SLR 1998, Vol :3, Page: 61

PAUL COIR (PVT) LTD. v. WAAS SLR 2000, Vol :2, Page: 167

DISTILLERIES COMPANY LTD. v. KARIYAWASAM AND OTHERS SLR 2001, Vol :3, Page: 119

WIJESUNDARA v. WIJESUNDARA SLR 2003, Vol :1, Page: 374

JAYAWARDENA AND OTHERS VS SAMPATH BANK SLR 2005, Vol :2, Page: 83

















KANDASAMY VS. KANDASAMY SLR 2006, Vol :2, Page: 260

KAROLIS v WICKREMARATNE SLR 2008, Vol :1, Page: 193

JEEVANI INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD. v WIJESENA PERERA SLR 2008, Vol :1, Page: 207

RANJITH PERERA AND ANOTHER v DHARMADASA AND OTHERS SLR 2008, Vol :1, Page: 377

SOMASUNDARAM v. IBRAHIM SAIBU NLR Vol :1, Page: 297

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION OF FERNANO, L.S. NLR Vol :27, Page: 245

ANDIAPPA CHETTIAR v. SANMUGAM CHETTIAR NLR Vol :33, Page: 217

WARNASURIYA v. LUCY NONA et al., NLR Vol :49, Page: 313

URBAN COUNCIL OF DEHIWELA MOUNT LAVINIA et al., v. ANDY SILVA NLR Vol :57, Page: 562

MOHIDEEN ALI v. HASSIM NLR Vol :62, Page: 457

WICKRAMATILAKE v. DARSIN DE SILVA NLR Vol :62, Page: 97

RAJENDRA v. PARAKRAMAS LTD. NLR Vol :63, Page: 553

WIJESINGHE v. INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION NLR Vol :65, Page: 364

WILLIAM SILVA v. SIRISENA NLR Vol :68, Page: 206

25. Recognized agents.

The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances and applications may be made or acts may be

done are

(a) the Attorney-General, on behalf of the State in respect of any court; who is also authorized to depute his

power of appointing a registered attorney on behalf of the State in respect to any court to any person by a

written document to be signed by the Attorney-General, and to be filed in that court;

(b) persons holding general powers of attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the

jurisdiction of the court within which limits the appearance or application is made or act done, authorizing

them to make such appearances and applications, and do such acts on behalf of such parties; which power,

or a copy thereof certified by an attorney-at-law or notary, shall in each case be filed in the court;

[4,20 of 1977]

(c) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of

the jurisdiction of the court within which limits the appearance or application is made or act done, in matters

connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make such

appearances and applications and do such acts.


SCIENCE HOUSE (CEYLON) LIMITED. v. I. P. A. LABORATORIES PRIVATE

LIMITED.

SLR 1989, Vol :1, Page: 155


















DAMAYANTHI ABEYWARDENE AND ANOTHER v. HEMALATHA

ABEYWARDENE AND OTHERS

SLR 1993, Vol :1, Page: 272

GRICILDA HEWA v. THOMAS HEWA SLR 1998, Vol :3, Page: 43

WIJESUNDARA v. WIJESUNDARA SLR 2003, Vol :1, Page: 374

JAYATILAKE v. LIYANAGE AND ANOTHER SLR 2003, Vol :2, Page: 190

UMMA ANINA v. JAWAHAR SLR 2004, Vol :2, Page: 1

VELAPPA CHETTY v. MEYDIN NLR Vol :1, Page: 333


THE BANK OF CHETTINAD. LTD. v. THAMBIAH et al., NLR Vol :35, Page: 190

KUMARIHAMY v. PUNCHI MENIKA NLR Vol :38, Page: 385

LANKA ESTATES AGENCY, LTD. v. COREA NLR Vol :52, Page: 477

BASTIAM PILLAI v. ANNA FERNANDO NLR Vol :54, Page: 113

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. M. W. SILVA NLR Vol :61, Page: 500

WIJESINGHE v. INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION NLR Vol :65, Page: 364


26. Processes served on the recognized agent, effectual.
















(1) Processes served on the recognized agent of a party to an action or appeal shall be as effectual as if the

same had been served on the party in person, unless the court otherwise directs.

(2) The provisions of this Ordinance for the service of process on a party to an action shall apply to the service

of process on his recognized agent.

No cases.

27.Appointment of registered attorney.

(1) The appointment of a registered attorney to make any appearance or application, or do any act as aforesaid,

shall be in writing signed by the client, and shall be filed in court; and every such appointment shall contain

an address at which service of any process which under the provisions of this Chapter may be served on a

registered attorney, instead of the party whom he represents, may be made.

(2) When so filed, it shall be in force until revoked with the leave of the court and after notice to the registered

attorney by a writing signed by the client and filed in court, or until the client dies, or until the registered

attorney dies, is removed, or suspended, or otherwise becomes incapable to act, or until all proceedings in

the action are ended and judgment satisfied so far as regards the client.

(3) No counsel shall be required to present any document empowering him to act. The Attorney-General may

appoint a registered attorney to act specially in any particular case or to act generally on behalf of the State.

SEELAWATHIE AND ANOTHER v. JAYASINGHE SLR 1985, Vol :2, Page:

266

UDESHI AND OTHERS v. MATHER SLR 1988, Vol :1, Page:

12

HAMEED v. DEEN AND OTHERS SLR 1988, Vol :2, Page:

1

MANAPERI SOMAWATHIE v. BUWANESWARI SLR 1990, Vol :1, Page:

223

JINADASA AND ANOTHER v. SAM SILVA AND OTHERS SLR 1994, Vol :1, Page:

232

SHAFEER v. DHARMAPALA SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page:

181

FERNANDO v. SYBIL FERNANDO AND 2 OTHERS SLR 1996, Vol :2, Page:

169

FERNANDO v. SYBIL FERNANDO AND OTHERS SLR 1997, Vol :3, Page:

1

DIAS v. KARAWITA SLR 1999, Vol :1, Page:

98

PAUL COIR (PVT) LTD. v. WAAS SLR 2000, Vol :2, Page:

167

DISTILLERIES COMPANY LTD. v. KARIYAWASAM AND

OTHERS

SLR 2001, Vol :3, Page:

119













WANIGARATNA v. DISSANAYAKE SLR 2002, Vol :2, Page:

331

NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VIOLET SLR 2002, Vol :3, Page:

337

KARUNAWATHIE V JABIR AND OTHERS SLR 2004, Vol :3, Page:

123

SlRlWARDENA AND OTHERS VS JOHN KEELS CO.

LIMITED


89

JEEVANI INVESTMENTS VS.WIJESENA SLR 2005, Vol :3, Page:

256

ALIMA UMMA VS SIYANERIS SLR 2006, Vol :1, Page:

22

DISSANAYAKE VS HEMANTHA SLR 2006, Vol :2, Page:

12

JEEVANI INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD. v WIJESENA

PERERA


207

RANJITH PERERA AND ANOTHER v DHARMADASA AND

OTHERS


377

S. P. GUNATILAKE V. S. P. SUNlL EKANAYAKE SLR 2010, Vol :2, Page:

191

LE MESURIER v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL NLR Vol :10, Page: 67

PERERA v. PERERA. NLR Vol :11, Page: 1

TILLEKERATNE v. WIJESINHE NLR Vol :11, Page: 270

FERNANDO et al. v. MATHEW et al. NLR Vol :15, Page: 88

TIMES OF CEYLON Co. v. LOW NLR Vol :16, Page: 434

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION OF FERNANO,

L.S.


NELSON DE SILVA v. CASINATHAN, S. NLR Vol :55, Page: 121

KADIRGAMADAS v. SUPPIAH NLR Vol :56, Page: 172

KANDIAH v. VAIRAMUTTU NLR Vol :60, Page: 1

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. M. W. SILVA NLR Vol :61, Page: 500

MOHIDEEN ALI v. HASSIM NLR Vol :62, Page: 457


L.J. PEIRIS & Co.LTD v. PEIRIS NLR Vol :74, Page: 261




























28. Death or incapacity Of registered attorney.

If any such registered attorney as in the last preceding section is mentioned shall die, or be removed or

suspended, or otherwise become incapable to act as aforesaid, at any time before judgment, no further

proceeding shall be taken in the action against the party for whom he appeared until thirty days after notice

to appoint another registered attorney has been given to that party either personally or in such other manner

as the court directs.

HAMEED v. DEEN AND OTHERS SLR 1988, Vol :2, Page:

1

MANAPERI SOMAWATHIE v. BUWANESWARI SLR 1990, Vol :1, Page:

223

FERNANDO v. SYBIL FERNANDO AND 2 OTHERS SLR 1996, Vol :2, Page:

169

SAHEEDA UMMA AND ANOTHER v. HANIFFA AND OTHERS SLR 1999, Vol :1, Page:

150

ISEK FERNANDO v. RITA FERNANDO AND OTHERS SLR 1999, Vol :3, Page:

29

KALAWANE DHAMMADASSI THERO v. MAWELLA

DHAMMAVISUDDHI TRERO et al.,


29. Service on registered attorney.

Any process served on the registered attorney of any party or left at the office or ordinary residence of such

registered attorney, relative to an action or appeal, except where the same is for the personal appearance of

the party, shall be presumed to be duly communicated and made known to the party whom the registered

attorney represents; and, unless the court otherwise directs, shall be as effectual for all purposes in relation

to the action or appeal as if the same had been given to, or served on, the party in person.

RASIAH v. RANMANY AND OTHERS SLR 1978-79, Vol :2, Page:

88

ISEK FERNANDO v. RITA FERNANDO AND OTHERS SLR 1999, Vol :3, Page: 29


HASWl VS. JAYTISSA AND TWO OTHERS SLR 2011, Vol :1, Page: 94

URBAN COUNCIL OF DEHIWELA MOUNT LAVINIA et al., v. ANDY

SILVA


AHAMADULEBBAI v. JUBARIUMMAH NLR Vol :62, Page: 474

WICKRAMATILAKE v. DARSIN DE SILVA NLR Vol :62, Page: 97

NAGAPPAN v. LANKABARANA NLR Vol :75, Page: 488

PONNAMMA v. ARMUGAM NLR Vol :8, Page: 223


















30. Agent to accept service.

Besides the recognized agents described in section 25, any person residing within the jurisdiction of the court

may be appointed an agent to accept service of process. Such appointment may be special or general, and

shall be made by an instrument in writing signed by the principal, which shall contain an address at which

such service may be made, and which, or, if the appointment be general, a duly attested copy thereof, shall

be filed in court.

No appointment under this section shall be of any force or effect for the purpose of enabling or authorizing

process to be served on an agent so appointed in any action to recover money due upon the mortgage of

immovable property.

HAROLD FERNANDO v. FONSEKA AND OTHERS SLR 1998, Vol :3, Page:

301

SALIH v HEMAWATHIE SLR 2004, Vol :3, Page:

91

30A. Agent to accept service in action upon mortgage of immovable property.

[2,12 of 1973]

(1) The mortgagor of any immovable property may make application for the registration of the address of any

registered attorney or any person for the service of process in any action upon the mortgage. The application

shall be made substantially in the form No. 11A in the First Schedule.

(2) The address for service shall be registered in or in continuation of the folio in which is registered the

mortgage of the immovable property.

(3) Where the applicant declares in his application that a previously registered address is cancelled, the

Registrar shall make a new entry in the register and cancel the registration of the previous address.

(4) The fee for registration of the address for service or for a change of such address shall be fifty cents, with

an addition of ten cents for each folio after the first in which the address is to be registered.



[Sections 31 and 32 repealed by Law No. 20 of 1977]

No cases.

33. Regular action how to be framed.

Every regular action shall, as far as Regular action, practicable, be so framed as to afford how to be ground

for a final decision upon the subjects framed, in dispute, and so to prevent further litigation concerning them,

BROWN AND COMPANY v. STEUART INDUSTRIES LTD. SLR 1982, Vol :2, Page: 440

GANGULWITIGAMA PANNALOKA THERO v. COLOMBO

SARANANKARA THERO AND OTHERS

SLR 1983, Vol :1, Page: 332

PANNALOKA THERO v. SARANANKARA THERO SLR 1983, Vol :2, Page: 523

KEERTHIWANSA v. URBAN COUNCIL HORANA AND 3 OTHERS SLR 2001, Vol :3, Page: 252

FERNANDO et al., v. ARNOLIS NLR Vol :32, Page: 328

V. C. MAMMOO V. M. P. K. MENON NLR Vol :66, Page: 289

SELESTINA FERNANDO v. CYRIL FERNANDO AND ANOTHER NLR Vol :80, Page: 198

WIJESINGHE.M.D.I v. ASLIN NONA NLR Vol :80, Page: 213

PONNIAH v. PAYHAMY NLR Vol :8, Page: 375

34.Every action shall include whole claim.

(1) Every action shall include the Every action whole of the claim which the plaintiff is shall include entitled to

make in respect of the cause of w _e c aim-action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in

order to bring the action within the jurisdiction of any court.

(2) If a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of, his claim, he shall not

afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. A person entitled to more than one remedy

in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of his remedies; but if he omits (except with the











leave of the court obtained before the hearing) to sue for any of such remedies, he shall not afterwards sue

for the remedy so omitted.

(3) For the purpose of this section, an obligation and a collateral security for its performance shall be deemed

to constitute but one cause of action.

Illustration

A lets a house to B at a yearly rent of Rs. 1000. The rent for the whole of the two years 1886 and 1887 is due

and unpaid. A sues B only for the rent due for one of those years. A shall not afterwards sue B for the rent

due for the other year.

BROWN AND COMPANY v. STEUART INDUSTRIES LTD. SLR 1982, Vol :2, Page: 440

GANGULWITIGAMA PANNALOKA THERO v. COLOMBO SARANANKARA

THERO AND OTHERS

SLR 1983, Vol :1, Page: 332

PANNALOKA THERO v. SARANANKARA THERO SLR 1983, Vol :2, Page: 523

ROSHAN PEIRIS v. EDIRISINGHE SLR 1986, Vol :2, Page: 147

GOVERNMENT MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v.

SENANAYAHE

SLR 2001, Vol :3, Page: 377

KRISHNAMOORTHY v. GANESHAN SLR 2004, Vol :1, Page: 374

PEOPLE'S BANK AND SEVEN OTHERS V. YASASlRl KASTHURIARACHCHI SLR 2010, Vol :1, Page: 227

CARD v. AROLIS NLR Vol :10, Page: 173

IBRAHIM BAAY v. ABDUL RAHIM NLR Vol :12, Page: 177

BASTIAN SILVA v. MARIANO SILVA NLR Vol :12, Page: 181

MOHAMED CASSIM v. SINNE LEBBE MARICAR NLR Vol :12, Page: 184

HOLLOWAY et al v. PERERA NLR Vol :13, Page: 198

DINGIRI MENIKA v. PUNCHI MAHATMAYA et al., NLR Vol :13, Page: 59

ALLAGASAMY v. THE KALUTARA CO., LTD. NLR Vol :14, Page: 262

KING v. JAYATILLEKE NLR Vol :15, Page: 151

PALANIAPPA CHETTY v. SAMINATHAN CHETTY et al. NLR Vol :15, Page: 161

MOHIDEEN v. PITCHE NLR Vol :17, Page: 410

PALANIAPPA v. SAMINATHAN et al. NLR Vol :17, Page: 56

BUDDHARAKITA TERUNNANSE v. GUNASEKARA NLR Vol :1, Page: 206


PALANIAPPA CHETTY v. MORTIMER NLR Vol :25, Page: 209

ANNAMALAY CHETTY v. THRONHILL NLR Vol :29, Page: 494

PANDITHAN CHETTIAR v. SINGHAPPUHAMY NLR Vol :37, Page: 310

SAIBO et al. v. ABUTHAHIR et al NLR Vol :37, Page: 319

VANDERPOORTEN v. PEIRIS NLR Vol :39, Page: 5




























ODIRISHAMY v. ELARIS NLR Vol :46, Page: 68

LEMPHERS v. ANTHONY APPUHAMY NLR Vol :5, Page: 181

HERATH v. ATTORNEY GENERAL NLR Vol :60, Page: 193

EBHRAMJEE v. SIMON SINGHO NLR Vol :62, Page: 261

V. C. MAMMOO V. M. P. K. MENON NLR Vol :66, Page: 289

KANDIAH v. KANDASAMY NLR Vol :73, Page: 105


FERNANDO v. THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF ANDIAMBALAMA NLR Vol :78, Page: 4

MERCANTILE BANK LTD. v. ANVER NLR Vol :78, Page: 481

DHAMMADAJA THERO v. WIMALAJOTHI THERO NLR Vol :79, Page: 145

SELESTINA FERNANDO v. CYRIL FERNANDO AND ANOTHER NLR Vol :80, Page: 198

WIJESINGHE.M.D.I v. ASLIN NONA NLR Vol :80, Page: 213

35. Joinder of claims in actions for immovable property.

(1) In an action for the recovery of immovable property, or to obtain a declaration of title to immovable

property, no other claim, or any cause of action, shall be made unless with the leave of the court, except

(a) claims in respect of mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed;

(b) damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; or consequential

on the trespass which constitutes the cause of action; and

(c) claims by a mortgagee to enforce any of his remedies under the mortgage. Example. A sues B to recover

land upon the allegation that the land belongs to C, and that he. A, has bought it of C. A makes C a party

defendant; but he cannot, without leave of the court, join with this claim an alternative claim for damages

against C for non-performance of his contract of sale.

In actions against executors, & c.

(2) No claim by or against an executor, administrator, or heir, as such, shall in any action be joined with

claims by or against him personally unless the last-mentioned claims are alleged to arise with reference to the

estate in respect of which the plaintiff or defendant sues or is sued as executor, administrator, or heir, or are

such as he was entitled to or liable for jointly with the deceased person whom be represents.

FERNANDO v. LAKSHMAN PERERA SLR 2000, Vol :2, Page: 413

EDIRISINGHE v. WIMALAWARDANE AND ANOTHER SLR 2002, Vol :3, Page: 343


PEIRIS AND ANOTHER vs SIRIPALA SLR 2009, Vol :1, Page: 75

MASTER DIVERS (PVT.) LTD., VS. ANUSHA KARUNARATNE AND OTHERS SLR 2010, Vol :1, Page: 403

KIRI BANDA v. SLEMA LEBBE NLR Vol :11, Page: 348








http://www.lawlanka.com/lal/nlrDetailReportView?caseId=NLR78IV4











HOLLOWAY et al v. PERERA NLR Vol :13, Page: 198

ALLAGASAMY v. THE KALUTARA CO., LTD. NLR Vol :14, Page: 262

MUTTUNAYAGAM v. BRITO et al., NLR Vol :22, Page: 329

MENIKA v. MENIKA et al., NLR Vol :25, Page: 6

WYREMUTTU v. ELIYATAMBY NLR Vol :2, Page: 213

MUTTUMENIKA v. SUDUMENIKA NLR Vol :45, Page: 58

A.NAGARAJAH v. A. JEBARATNARAJAH NLR Vol :69, Page: 475


36. In other cases.

(1) Subject to the rules contained in the last section, the plaintiff may unite in the same action several causes

of action against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly, and any plaintiffs having causes of action

in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or defendants may unite such causes of action

in the same action.

Exception: court may order separation.

But if it appears to the court that an such causes of action cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together,

the court may, at any time before the hearing, of its own motion or on the application of any defendant, in

both cases either in the presence of, or upon notice to, the plaintiff, or at any subsequent stage of the action

if the parties agree, order separate trials of any such causes of action to be had, or make such other order as

may be necessary or expedient for the separate disposal thereof.

(2) When causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the court as regards the action shall depend on the

amount or value of the aggregate subject-matter at the date of instituting the action, whether or not an order

has been made under the second paragraph of subsection (1).

PREMANIE SAMARASINGHE v. LEELARAJA SAMARASINGHE SLR 1990, Vol :1, Page: 31


COLGAN AND OHTERS v. UDESHI AND OTHERS SLR 1996, Vol :2, Page: 220

AMEER v. KULATUNGE SLR 1996, Vol :2, Page: 398


STASSEN EXPORTS LTD. VS. REGISTRAR OF PATENTS AND TRADE

MARKS AND OTHERS SLR 2006, Vol :1, Page: 340

LONDON AND LANCASHIRE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. P & O

COMPANY et al.,


KALUHAMY et al v. APPUHAMY et al., NLR Vol :18, Page: 87


APPUHAMY v. WALKER et al., NLR Vol :22, Page: 313


FERNANDO et al., v. FERNANDO NLR Vol :39, Page: 145























MAPALATHAN v. ELAYAVAN NLR Vol :41, Page: 115


PODIHAMY ET AL v. SEIMON APPU NLR Vol :47, Page: 503


THIRUMALAY v. KULANDAVELU NLR Vol :66, Page: 285

A.NAGARAJAH v. A. JEBARATNARAJAH NLR Vol :69, Page: 475


PONNUDURAI v. SITHAMPARAPILLAI NLR Vol :71, Page: 315


WERAGAMA v. BANDARA NLR Vol :77, Page: 289

37. Application by defendant in such cases.

Any defendant alleging that the plaintiff has united in the same action several causes of action, which cannot

be conveniently disposed of in one action, may at any time before the hearing apply to the court for an order

confining the action to such of the causes of action as may be conveniently disposed of in one action.


RODRIGO VS. THE FINANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHER SLR 2005, Vol :2, Page: 285


MAPALATHAN v. ELAYAVAN NLR Vol :41, Page: 115

38. Order of court thereon.

(1) If, on the hearing of such application, it appears to the court that the causes of action are such as cannot

all be conveniently disposed of in one action, the court may order any of such causes of action to be excluded,

and may direct the plaint to be amended accordingly, and may make such order as to costs as may be just.

(2) Every amendment made under this section shall be attested by the signature of the Judge.

COLOMBO SHIPPING CO. LTD. v. CHIRAYU CLOTHING (PVT)

LTD.

SLR 1995, Vol :2, Page: 97

















PERERA v GEEKIYANA SLR 2007, Vol :1, Page:

202

SOMALOKA TERUNNANSE v. SOMALANKARA TERUNNANSE et al,. NLR Vol :3, Page: 380

LEBBE v. SANDANAM NLR Vol :64, Page: 461

39. Regular action to commence by plaint. [6,20 of 1977]

[3,79 of 1988]

Every action of regular procedure shall be instituted by presenting a duly stamped written plaint to the court,

or to such officer as the court shall appoint in that behalf. The plaint shall be accompanied by such number of

summonses in Form No, 16 in the First Schedule as there are defendants, and a precept in Form" No. 17 of

the said Schedule.

WIGNESWAREN v. THAMBIPILLAI SLR 1983, Vol :1, Page: 325

WIJERATNE AND ANOTHER v. WEERATUNGA SLR 1999, Vol :1, Page: 332

YOUSOOF MOHAMED AND ANOTHER v. INDIAN OVERSEAS

BANK

SLR

1999, Vol :3, Page: 278

Requisites of Plaint [7,20 of 1977]

40. The plaint shall be distinctly written upon good and suitable paper, and shall plaint contain the following

particulars.

(a) the name of the court and date of filing the plaint;

(b) the name, description, and place of residence of the plaintiff;

(c) the name, description, and the place of residence of the defendant so far as the same can be ascertained;

(d) a plain and concise statement of the circumstances constituting each cause of action, and where and when

it arose. Such statement shall be set forth in duly numbered paragraphs; and where two or more causes of

action are set out, the statement of the circumstances constituting each cause of action must be separate,

and numbered;

(e) a demand of the relief which the plaintiff claims; and

(f) if the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount so allowed or

relinquished,








If the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint must state the precise amount, so far as the case

admits. In an action for a specific chattel, or to establish, recover, or enforce any right, status, or privilege,

or for mesne profits, or for the amount which will be found due to the plaintiff on taking unsettled accounts

between him and the defendant, the plaint need only state approximately the value of the chattel, right, status,

or privilege, or the amount sued for.

HAMEED ALIAS ABDUL RAHMAN v. WEERASINGHE AND OTHERS SLR 1989, Vol :1, Page: 217

GUNASENA v. KANDAGE AND OTHERS SLR 1997, Vol :3, Page: 393


ANOTHER

SLR 1998, Vol :3, Page: 180

ANTHONY v. WEERASINGHE SLR 2000, Vol :2, Page: 212

NARENDRA v. SEYLAN MERCHANT BANK LTD. AND OTHERS SLR 2003, Vol :2, Page: 1


LESLIE SlLVA VS PERERA SLR 2005, Vol :2, Page: 184

ATUKORALE v. SAMYNATHAN NLR Vol :41, Page: 165

WIJEWARDENE v. LENORA NLR Vol :60, Page: 457

SUBRAMANIAN v. SEENIAR NLR Vol :61, Page: 433

K.THIAGARAJAH v. P.KARTHIGESU NLR Vol :69, Page: 73

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF JAFFNA v. DODWELL & Co. LTD. NLR Vol :74, Page: 25

SURIAN PULLE et al. v. SILVA et al., NLR Vol :9, Page: 80













