Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner appellants) on the basis of being aggrieved by the judgment pronounced by the Provincial High Court of the Central Province holden in Kandy while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in the Revision Application No. CP/HCCA/21/2019 (REV). The said judgment has been pronounced on 27 01 2015, and for the reasons set out in the judgment, the learned Judges of the High Court have dismissed the said revision application.

When this matter was supported for the granting of Leave to Appeal on 16 05 2017, this Court granted Leave to Appeal on the questions of law as set out in sub paragraphs (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (x) of paragraph 15 of the petition dated 27 02 2015.

In addition to the above, two additional questions of law as proposed by the learned President’s Counsel who represented the defendant defendant respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) has also been permitted.

The said questions of law that need consideration in this appeal read as follows;

1. Did the learned Civil Appellate High Court Judges err by not exercising revisionary jurisdiction conferred on the Civil Appellate High Court in order to avoid miscarriage of justice caused to the petitioners in the circumstances of this case.

2. Did the learned Judges of the High Court err in law in construing the contents of terms of settlement (X1) and the settlement order (X3) and by concluding that they were not identical.

3. Did the learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court err by not appreciating that the subsequent publication of the settlement order in the government gazette is only a confirmation of title already vested in the predecessor of the petitioners by X1.

4. Did the Civil Appellate High Court err in holding that the land sought to be partitioned was different from the land claimed by the petitioners, without taking into account that the land described in X1 and X2 has been referred to in P3 and P4 relied upon by the respondents and also in the settlement order published in gazette (X3) by reference to and identical lot 32 in B.S.V.P. 331.

5. Whether the provisions of section 8 of the Land Settlement Ordinance have to be construed in the light of the entry of settlement on 16 05 1956 and the publication of order (X3) after 27 years so as not to prejudice of the rights of a purchaser after the settlement.

6. Does the publication of land settlement order in gazette X3 vitiates any deeds executed prior to that date.

7. Whether the document marked X1 has any legal validity after the land settlement order in gazette notification marked X3.

At the hearing of this appeal, this Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel who represented the petitioner appellants and also the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the respondents. This Court also had the benefit of considering the extensive written submissions tendered by the parties as to their respective stands.

The facts that led to the filing of the revision application before the Provincial High Court can be summarized in the following manner.

The plaintiff in District Court of Matale Partition Action No. P2508 has instituted proceedings in order to partition the land morefully described in the schedule of the plaint between the plaintiff and the defendants named in the action.

After following the due procedure in that regard, the Commissioner appointed for the purposes of the action, namely, Licensed Surveyor W.M.G.P. Gunathilaka, has prepared the preliminary survey plan No. 1795 dated 15 12 2005, identifying the land sought to be partitioned as lot 1 to 4 of the said plan.

According to the preliminary survey report, no one has claimed rights to the land other than the parties to the action.

At the trial, there had been no dispute as to the corpus sought to be partitioned and the title pleaded.

This is a lan