Judgment

The Preliminary Objection raised for the plaintiff respondent respondent is recorded in the Journal Entry dated 28.02.2022, as reproduced below,

 “Whereas by way of prayer “b” of the prayer to the petition dated 06.11.2025, the petitioner seeks to canvas the order marked P.7, that is, to say the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appellate of Uva Province holden at Badulla dated 16.09.2015 and whereas the High Court of Civil Appellate of Uva Province exercised a similar jurisdiction before the Court of Appeal and whereas the petitioner is seeking to canvass the concurrent jurisdiction of the Civil Appellate High Court, the preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner cannot canvass the said order marked P.7 before the Court of Appeal”.

Hence, the preliminary objection is clear. It says, once an appellate Court has exercised jurisdiction and therefore it cannot be done once again.

The paragraph (b) of the prayer to the petition of the defendant appellant petitioner is as reproduced below, “(b) exercise the revisionary jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of restitutio in integrum and set aside the judgment of the District Court of Badulla marked “P.5” dated 22.02.2013 and the judgment marked “P.7” dated 16.09.2015 of the High Court of the Civil Appeal of Uva Province holden at Badulla”.

The District Court has decided the case in favour of the plaintiff and the Civil Appellate High Court has dismissed the defendant’s appeal.

Section 5(A)(1) of High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006 established what is commonly called Civil Appellate High Courts or High Courts of Civil Appeal. The said section reads,

“5(A) (1) A High Court established by Article 154P of the Constitution for a Province, shall have and exercise appellate and revisionary jurisdiction in respect of judgments, decrees and orders delivered and made by any District Court or a Family Court within such Province and the appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law, which shall be committed by any such District Court or Family Court, as the case may be”.

Article 138 of the Constitution, confers the revisionary and restitutio in integrum jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. It says,

“138(1) 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…”

But, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, brought in 1987, amended Article 138. Presently it reads,

 “ “138(1) 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 2[committed by the High Court, in the exercise of its appellate or original jurisdiction or 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 3[of which such High Court, Court of First Instance] tribunal or other institution may have taken cognizance:…”

2 - Substituted by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution Sec.3(a) for "committed by any Court of First Instance."

3 - Substituted by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution Sec.3(b) for "of which such Court of First Instance"

The said section has two parts.

(1) an appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law which shall be 2[committed by the High Court, in the exercise of its appellate or original jurisdiction or by any Court of First Instance], tribunal or ot