IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act, No. 02 of 1978, against Dhammika Ambewela, Attorney-at-

Law.

Madarasinghage Chandradasa, Mahagalahena, Walakandakanda, SC Rule No. 04/2024 Wathukanda, Katuwana.

COMPLAINANT -Vs-

Dhammika Ambewela Attorney-at-Law, No. 75, Main Street, Deniyaya.

RESPONDENT BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

MENAKA WIJESUNDERA, J. &

M. SAMPATH K. B. WIJERATNE, J COUNSEL: Sandun Senadhipathi with Nuwan Godage instructed by Danuka Lakmal for the Respondent Attorney-at-Law Chathura Galhena for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.

Suharshie Herath Jayaweera, DSG for the Hon. Attorney-General INQUIRY ON: 08^th August 2024, 14^th March 2025, 07^th May 2025, 17^th June 2025 DECIDED ON: 24^th July 2025 THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

1. The instant Rule was preferred by the Registrar of this Court pursuant to a complaint against the Respondent Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Dhammika Ambewela, made by one Mr. Madarasinghage Chandradasa of Mahagalahena, Walakadakanda, Wathukanda, Katuwana (hereinafter the “Complainant” or the “Virtual Complainant”), initially dated

1

18^th January 2022. Thereafter, the Virtual Complainant has made several accompanying petitions, including an affidavit dated 22^nd March 2022, along with supporting documentary evidence.

THE RULE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT

2. Having considered the contents of the said Complaint and supporting documents, this Court deemed it fit to issue a Rule against the Respondent, who has been engaged in the legal practice for well over thirty-seven years.

Marked “A9”

3. The Rule issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court against the Respondent Attorney-

at-Law, dated 08^th August 2024, is as follows:

“WHEREAS a Complaint has been made to His Lordship the Chief Justice by Mr. Madarasinghage Chandradasa of Mahagalahena, Walakadakanda, Wathukanda, Katuwana, (hereinafter referred to as the said complainant), alleging deceit and malpractice on your part;

AND WHEREAS the said complaint made against you and the Affidavit and documents furnished by the said complainant discloses, inter alia, that;

a. You have acted fraudulently to facilitate the transfer of property in favour of the complainant by entering into an agreement to sell;

b. However, you have failed to execute the said agreement to sell in terms of the provisions of the Notaries Ordinance;

c. Without executing the agreement to sell in terms of the law you have fraudulently obtained money from the said complainant who bona fide believed that he has entered in to a valid agreement to sell;

d. The complainant bona fide believing that there is a valid agreement to sell of the property, has paid you in installments between the period of 2003.02.07 to

2006.02.25.

e. After paying the agreed amount in total, including fees for the Deed of transfer the complaint had requested several times for the property to be transferred to him as agreed upon.

f. Subsequently the complainant got to know about the alleged transaction, of a Deed of transfer, including the said property to one Kaluhath Thabrew Linton by Deed no. 296 dated 13.11.2012, which has been facilitated too by you knowingly that the complainant ha paid in full the agreed claimed amount by 25.02.2006;

AND WHEREAS, you have thus fraudulently and in abuse of your position as an Attorney at Law and Notary Public acted fraudulently in making the complainant believe that he had entered into a valid Agreement to sell the property in violation of the applicable provisions of law.

AND WHEREAS, the aforesaid complaint made by the complainant discloses that; (a) by reason of the aforesaid conduct you have acted in a manner which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable of an Attorneys-at-Law [sic] of good repute and competency and have thus committed a breach of Rule No. 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette of Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988 made under Article 136 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialis