B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Defendant-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine the application of the Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”). As this is a threshold issue pertaining to jurisdiction, we heard the parties’ oral submissions and directed them to file written submissions on this point of law. This Order deals with the merits of the preliminary objection.

In the instant application, dated 4^th May 2022, made under Article 138 of the Constitution for restitutio-in- integrum and/or revision, the Petitioner is seeking to revise and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal holden at Negombo dated 21^st March 2022 (“X21”); to affirm the judgment of the District Court of Negombo dated 19^th January 2021 (“X8”) or in the alternative to order a trial-de-novo allowing parties to raise the actual point of contest arising out of the dispute.

The facts in brief, as narrated in the Petition, are as follows. The Petitioner was formerly married to the Respondent. Prior to their nuptials, they jointly purchased a land, by Deeds of Transfer Nos. 852 and 922 (dated, respectively, 26^th August 1998 and 17^th December 1998). Following the dissolution of their marriage, they sought to partition the land. The District Court of Negombo decreed to partition the land in equal shares to both parties. The Respondent- husband, appealed to the High Court of Civil Appeal holden at Negombo, and by judgment dated 21^st March 2022 the learned High Court Judges set aside the judgment of the District Court. It was concluded that the Petitioner-wife holds her share of the land on a Constructive Trust in favour of the Respondent- husband (while the Respondent was absolutely entitled to the remaining share of the land) as the attendant circumstances signified that the Respondent-husband did not intend to dispose of the beneficial interest in the land to the Petitioner-wife when the said Deeds of Transfer were executed. The Petitioner’s grievance is that this judgment (“X21”) is erroneous in fact and law as it has not appreciated certain material particulars.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection disputing the jurisdiction of this Court to revise and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal (hereinafter also referred to as “High Court of the Provinces” or “Provincial High Court”) and to grant restitution as prayed for by the Petitioner. The objection is that this Court has no revisionary or restitutionary jurisdiction in respect of judgments and orders of the High Court of the Provinces exercising civil appellate and revisionary jurisdiction in respect of the judgments and orders of the District Courts. Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990, as amended by the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006, provides for a specific right of appeal for those aggrieved by the judgments and orders of the High Court of the Provinces exercising civil appellate and revisionary jurisdiction. This Section reads:

(1) An appeal shall lie directly to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or order pronounced or entered by a High Court established by Article 154P of the Constitution in the exercise of its jurisdiction granted by Section 5A of this Act, with the leave of the Supreme Court first had and obtained. The leave requested for shall be granted by the Supreme Court, where in its opinion the matter involves a substantial question of law or is a matter fit for review by such Court.

The Petitioner did not avail herself of the right of appeal granted by the aforesaid Act, within the prescribed time. The reason for not doing so as averred by the Petitioner in paragraph 14 of the Petition is that “considering the special circumstances of the case the Petitioner was advised and then opted to invoke this