IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.

Supreme Court Appeal No: Wickramaarachchige Senani, SC/Appeal/85/2023 No. E 10, Supreme Court L.A No. Medagodella Mawatha, SC HCCA/LA /33/2021 Kooriyanpola. Civil Appellate High Court Rambukkana.

of Kegalle Case No:

SP/HCCA/KEG /63/2019(F)

D.C. Kegalle Case No.

371/MS PLAINTIFF v.

Mallawa Waduge Jayaratne No. 167/22, Thataka Road, Kegalle.

DEFENDANT AND Wickramaarachchige Senani, No. E 10, Medagodella Mawatha, Kooriyanpola.

Rambukkana.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v.

Mallawa Waduge Jayaratne No. 167/22, Thataka Road, Kegalle.

DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Mallawa Waduge Jayaratne No. 167/22, Thataka Road, Kegalle.

DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT - APPELLANT v.

Wickramaarachchige Senani, No. E 10, Medagodella Mawatha, Kooriyanpola. Rambukkana.

PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT - RESPONDENT BEFORE : Janak De Silva, J.

Achala Wengappuli, J &

M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

COUNSEL : Shane Foster for the Defendant- Respondent-

Appellant.

Shabbeer Huzair for the Plaintiff - Appellant –

Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 21.03.2025 DECIDED ON : 04.09.2025 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

Introduction This is an appeal arising out of the judgment delivered on November 26, 2020 by the High Court of the Civil Appeals of Sabaragamuwa Province holden in Kegalle, setting aside the judgment of the learned District Judge of Kegalle, dismissing the action of the Plaintiff – Appellant – Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) and granting reliefs prayed for in the plaint.

The Defendant-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) sought leave to appeal from this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeals. This Court having heard the submissions of both learned Counsel appearing for the parties, granted leave to appeal on the question of law set out in Paragraph 18b of the petition and also on question of law framed by this Court. I will quote the two questions of law as they read “18b. Have the learned Lordship of the Honorable Civil Appellate High Court of Kegalle erred in law in failing to take into account the fact that the Plaintiff’s Petition to the Civil Appellate of Kegalle was tendered to the Court out of time and therefore should not have been entertained?” Questions of law formulated by this Court on May 23, 2023.

Have the learned Lordships of the Civil Appellate High Court erred in law by failing to consider Sections 45 and 48 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance in relation to presentment for payment and dishonor well considering whether the sums payable on පැ(cid:2)-1 were in fact payable?”

At the stage of argument both the learned Counsel for the Defendant and of the Plaintiff were heard and the judgment was reserved.

Factual background The Plaintiff instituted action against the Defendant in the District Court of Kegalle claiming a sum of Rs. 375,000/- along with interest on the basis that she advanced the said sum for which the Defendant furnished the promissory note marked ‘P1’ as security. It was her case that she demanded the said sum which the Defendant defaulted payment. Consequently, this action was filed under summary procedure set out in Chapter LIII of the Civil Procedure Code.

The Defendant having successfully made an application to unconditionally defend the case, took up the position that he borrowed only a sum of Rs. 250,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 135,000/- was repaid.1 The Defendant while challenging the promissory note and alleging that he never signed the said document, stated in the answer that he placed his signature on a stamp pasted on a blank promissory note.

1 At page 119 of the appeal brief.

At the trial, in evidence in chief itself, the Defendant denied having signed the promissory note marked ‘P1’, [2At page 118 of the appeal brief.]. However, in cross examination he