IN THE COURT APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Revision in term of Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. CA Application No: CPA 46/23 Sujeewa Suranga Palliyaguruge HC Kandy Revision Application No: 60/2021 No.48/01, Rajapihilla Mawatha, MC Kandy Case No: 31345/21 Kandy, Petitioner Vs

1. Kahawatte Pallegedara Chandraratne No.06, Bremo Park, Katugasthota

2. Pinpare Sumanaratne Thero No.04, Kudarawatte Road, Kandy.

Respondents AND THEN

1. Kahawatte Pallegedara Chandraratne No.06, Bremo Park, Katugasthota Petitioner Vs.

1. Sujeewa Suranga Palliyaguruge No.48/01, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy, Petitioner – Respondent

2. Pinpare Sumanaratne Thero No.04, Kudarawatte Road, Kandy.

Respondent- Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Sujeewa Suranga Palliyaguruge No.48/01, Rajapihilla Mawatha, Kandy Petitioner – Respondent –

Petitioner Vs.

1. Kahawatte Pallegedara Chandraratne No.06, Bremo Park, Katugasthota Respondent – Petitioner –

Respondent

2. Pinpare Sumanaratne Thero No.04, Kudarawatte Road, Kandy.

Respondent – Respondent –

Respondent Before : Hon. M. Ahsan R. Marikar, J.(CA)

: Hon. R. P. Hettiarachchi, J.(CA)

Counsel : Kalinga Indatissa, P.C. with Savinda Herath and Dilmi Paranawitharana for the Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner Pradeep Perera for the 1st Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent Argued on : 27.02.2025 Decided on : 02.04.2025 Hon. R. P. Hettiarachchi, J.(CA)

1. This Judgment shall dispose of the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner-

Respondent-Petitioner challenging the Order dated 04.04.2023 of the learned High Court Judge of Kandy, by which he set aside the Order dated 03.10.2021 of the learned Magistrate of Kandy.

2. The Order of the Magistrate Court relates to a case filed under Section 66 of the Primary Courts’ Procedure Act No. 44 of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the “Primary Courts’ Procedure Act”) in the Magistrate Court of Kandy, following a report submitted by the Officer in Charge of the Mawathagama Police Station.

3. Being aggrieved by the Order of the learned High Court Judge of Kandy, the Petitioner preferred the instant Revision Application.

4. Upon receiving notices, the 1^st Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the 1^st Respondent”) filed his Objections. In the Objections, the 1^st Respondent raised several preliminary objections, challenging the maintainability of the Petitioner’s Revision Application.

5. The objections raised by the 1^st Respondent are as follows:

• The Revision Application is unlawful, illegal and misconceived in law • The Affidavit of the Petitioner is unlawful, illegal and contrary to law • The Revision Application is contrary to Rules 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1990 • The Petitioner has suppressed and/or misrepresented material facts • The Petitioner has not come to court with clean hands and lack of uberima fides • The Affidavit of the Petitioner is undated which renders the Affidavit illegal and void ab initio • The schedule to the Petition which is the subject matter of the Revision Application as per 4^th paragraph of the Petition is erroneous and incorrect which renders the Revision Application null and void ab initio • The Petitioner failed to identify the corpus of the action • The Petitioner in the Revision Application failed to plead any exceptional circumstances which are recognized by law necessitating and/or warranting indulgence for invoking revisionary jurisdiction.

6. When the matter was taken up for argument on 27.02.2025, both counsels agreed to conclude the argument with the documents already submitted. Thus, no further submissions were made by either of them.

7. Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules sets out the manner in which applications are made to the Court of Appeal. For ease of reference, I will reproduce the relevant part.

3(1) (a). Every application made to the Court of Appeal for the exercise of the powers vested in the Court of A