IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA SC Appeal No: 26/2019 IN THE DISTRICT COURT SC/HCCA/LA No. 308/2017 Heeralu Arachchige Piyasena, of No.453/4, Podi Wee Kumbura, WP/HCCA/GPH/247/2010 (F)

Ragama.

D.C. Gampaha Case No. 3088/D PLAINTIFF - VS –

Malduwa Ranasinghe Gamage Chandrika, of No.388/B, Nandana Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala.

DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------- In an application to Purge Default in THE DISTRICT COURT Malduwa Ranasinghe Gamage Chandrika, of No.388/B, Nandana Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala.

DEFENDANT – PETITIONER - VS -

Heeralu Arachchige Piyasena, of No.453/4, Podi Wee Kumbura, Ragama.

PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------

AND BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT Malduwa Ranasinghe Gamage Chandrika, of No.388/B, Nandana Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala.

DEFENDANT – PETITIONER –

APPELLANT - VS -

Heeralu Arachchige Piyasena, of No.453/4, Podi Wee Kumbura, Ragama.

PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT –

RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------

AND NOW BETWEEN IN THE SUPREME COURT Malduwa Ranasinghe Gamage Chandrika, of No.388/B, Nandana Mawatha, Hunupitiya, Wattala.

DEFENDANT – PETITIONER –

APPELLANT – APPELLANT - VS –

Heeralu Arachchige Piyasena, of No.453/4, Podi Wee Kumbura, Ragama.

PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT –

RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Before : Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, CJ.

E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J.

Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.

Counsel : S.A.D.S. Suraweera for the Defendant – Petitioner – Appellant –

Appellant.

Sandamal Rajapakse for the Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent –

Respondent.

Argued on : 20.01.2023 Decided on : 13.06.2025 E.A.G.R Amarasekara, J.

This Appeal is made against the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Gampaha (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “High Court”) dated 17.05.2017 by the Defendant – Petitioner – Appellant – Appellant, Malduwa Ranasinghe Gamage Chandrika (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant” or “Appellant”), where the learned High Court Judges held in favour of the Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent – Respondent, Heeralu Arachchige Piyasena, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” or “Respondent”). The learned High Court Judges had refused to set aside the Judgment of the District Court of Gampaha dated 24.05.2007, which dismissed the Appellant’s application to purge her default.

The Respondent had instituted a divorce action No.3088/D in the Gampaha District Court by the Plaint dated 24.05.2007. After it was reported that summons had been served on the Appellant on 11.07.2007, due to the absence of the Appellant, on 16.08.2007, said divorce action was fixed for ex parte trial to be taken up on 10.10.2007 – vide J.E. No. 2 and 3 of the District Court brief.

Prior to the date fixed for ex parte trial, by a Petition dated 28.09.2007, the Appellant moved the District Court to vacate the said order fixing the matter for ex parte trial, and to allow her to file an answer, stating that she did not receive summons but came to know of the divorce action when the Respondent’s lawyer revealed it at the Maintenance Case No. 2980 of the Magistrate Court of Gampaha. Since the Appellant objected to this application, the Appellant had informed that she would come after serving the ex parte decree - vide J.E. No. 6 of the District Court brief.

Hence, after an ex parte trial, an ex parte decree had been entered. As it could not be served personally on the Appellant, it had been moved to serve it by substituted service, and accordingly, it has been served by substituted service. As a result, the Appellant had tendered an application to purge her default by way of Petition and Affidavit dated 26.11.2008- vide J.E.

No. 07 to 13 of the District Court brief.

By the said application to purge her default, among other things, the Appellant had averred that;

¥ She is the Defendant and an ex parte Judgment had been delivered.

¥ She was not residing at the address given in the Plaint, and as she received the ex parte