K. M. S. DISSANAYAKE, J.

Instant application in revision has been preferred to this Court by the Respondent-Respondent-Petitioners (hereinafter called and referred to as ‘the Petitioners”) seeking to revise and set aside the order dated 18.07.2025, made by the learned High Court Judge of the Southern Provincial High Court holden in Hambantota in an action bearing No. HCRA 21/2025 in the exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction vested in it by Article 154P(3)(b) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (hereinafter called and referred to as ‘the Constitution”) to be read with Article 138 of the Constitution, a certified copy of which was annexed to the petition furnished to this Court by Petitioners marked as P3 (hereinafter called and referred to as ‘the HC order”) whereby, he had revised and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate of Hambantota (P2), directing him to take up the case for inquiry and make an appropriate order under chapter VII of the Primary Court Procedure Act No.44 of 1979, and to affirm the order dated 21.04.2025 made by the learned Magistrate of Hambantota in the case bearing No. 2425/25, a certified copy of which was annexed to the petition furnished to this Court by Petitioners marked as P2 (hereinafter called and referred to as ‘the MC order”) whereby, he had refused to issue notices on the Respondents named in the information furnished to Court by the Petitioner-Petitioner Respondent (hereinafter called and referred to as ‘the Respondent”).

When this matter came on before us on 24.09.2025 for support for notice, learned Counsel for the Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection by way of a preliminary legal objection in relation to the maintainability of the instant application in revision on the premise that the Petitioners cannot invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court against the HC order (P3) made by the learned High Court Judge of the Southern Provincial High Court holden in Hambantota in the exercise of the parallel or concurrent revisionary jurisdiction vested both in the Provincial High Court and in this Court.

On the other hand, relying particularly, on the decision in SC/APPEAL No. 111/2015-decided on 27.05.2020, the Petitioners sought to resist the said jurisdictional objection on the premise that the revisionary jurisdiction vested in this Court is sufficiently, broad to empower it to revise any other made by an original Court.

Hence, the pivotal question that would arise for our consideration is whether this Court can exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in relation to an order made by the High Court of the Provinces established under Article 154P of the constitution enacted by the 13th Amendment thereto, in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction under and in terms of Article 154P(3)(b) of the Constitution to be read with Article 138 thereof.

At the hearing into the jurisdictional objection, Counsel for the respective parties sought an order on the jurisdictional objection on the strength of the written submissions and the written submissions were thus, tendered to this Court by the respective parties.

Jurisdictional objection so raised by the Respondent may now, be examined.

Before the 13th Amendment, Article 138 of the Constitution reads thus;

‘The Court of Appeal shall have and exercise subject to the provisions of the Constitution or of any law, an appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law which shall be committed by any Court of First Instance, tribunal or other institution and sole and exclusive cognizance, by way of appeal, revision and restitutio in integrum, of all causes, suits, actions, prosecutions, matters and things of which such Court of First Instance, tribunal or other institution may have taken cognizance:”

Proviso-not reproduced.

In the light of the Article 138 of the Constitution as it existed before the 13th Amendment, appellate and revisionary jurisdiction was solely, and exclusively, vested w