IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA.

In the matter of an Appeal under Article 154P (6) of the Constitution read with Section 11(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of

1990.

Officer in charge Court of Appeal Miscellaneous complaints section Case No: CA(PHC)162/2017 Police Station of Rathnapura Complainant PHC of Sabaragamuwa (holden in Rathnapura)

Vs Case No: Rev 29/2014 Vithanage Don Dharmasena Vithanage, Magistrate Court of Rathnapura No 42, Gorokgoda, Case No: 90616 Rathnapura.

1^st Party Respondent Kadawatha Arachchilage Ananda No 42, Gorokgoda, Rathnapura.

2^nd Party Respondent AND Kadawatha Arachchilage Ananda No 42, Gorokgoda, Rathnapura.

2^nd Party Respondent-Petitioner Vs Vithanage Don Dharmasena Vithanage No 42, Gorokgoda, Rathnapura.

1st Party Respondent- Respondent Officer in charge Miscellaneous complaints section Police Station of Rathnapura Complainant- Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Kadawatha Arachchilage Ananda No 42, Gorokgoda, Rathnapura

2nd Party Respondent-Petitioner-

Petitioner Vs.

Vithanage Don Dharmasena Vithanage No 42, Gorokgoda, Rathnapura.

1st Party Respondent- Respondent-

Respondent Officer in charge Miscellaneous complaints section Police Station of Rathnapura.

Complainant- Respondent -Respondent Before: Prasantha De Silva, J.

K.K.A.V. Swarnadhipathi, J.

Counsel: D.D.K Katugampola AAL for the 2^nd Party Respondent-Petitioner-

Petitioner.

J.M Wijebandara AAL and Chamodi Dayananda AAL for the 1^st Party Respondent-Respondent.

Written Submissions: Written submissions filed on 20/05/2022 by 2^nd Party Respondent-

Petitioner-Petitioner.

filed on:

Written submissions filed on 07/07/2022 by 1^st Party Respondent-

Respondent-Respondent Delivered on: 02.05.2023 Prasantha De Silva, J.

Judgment This appeal emanates from the order made by the learned High Court Judge of the Sabaragamuwa Province holden in Rathnapura exercising revisionary jurisdiction.

It appears that the officer in charge of the Rathnapura police station had filed an information in terms of section 66 1 (a) of the Primary Court Procedure Act No 44 of 1979 pursuant to the complaint made by the 1^st party Respondent against the 2^nd party Respondent for obstructing the existing roadway used by the 1^st party Respondent to access his house.

The learned Magistrate who was acting as the Primary Court Judge having inquired about the matter, had held against the 2nd party Respondent directing not to obstruct the 1st party Respondent’s right of way providing access to his house.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd party Respondent-Petitioner had invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court of Sabaragamuwa holden in Rathnapura.

The learned High Court Judge by order dated 20. 07.2017 had dismissed the revision application of the 2^nd party Respondent-Petitioner on the grounds that 2nd party Respondent- Petitioner is guilty of laches and also that no exceptional circumstances were established by the 2^nd party Respondent-Petitioner warranting the intervention of court by way of revision. According to Section 74 (2) of the Primary Code Procedure Act, no right of appeal is provided against an order made in terms of Section 66 of the said act.

Nevertheless, if there is an injustice caused to a party or any miscarriage of justice, the aggrieved party is allowed to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court. In this backdrop the Court of Appeal has to look into the matter of whether the learned High Court judge has properly exercised his duty to ascertain whether any injustice caused to a party or whether there is a miscarriage of justice occurred by the order of the learned magistrate. In view of the judgement in Aluthhewage Harshini Chandrika and others Vs. Officer in Charge … and others C.A. PHC 65/2003- C.A.M 21.04.2020 the Court of Appeal is not empowered to correct the errors made by the learned magistrate.

Justice Ranjit Silva opined in the case of Nandawathi and other Vs Mahindasoma [200