IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Rajapaksha Appuhamilage Lionel Ranjith, 282/1, Pahala Karagahaamuna, Kadawatha.

Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant SC/APPEAL/100/2020 WP/HCCA/GAM/42/2018 DC GAMPAHA 328/L Vs.

1. Suraweera Arachchige Dona Leelawathi, 282/1, Pahala Karagahaamuna, Kadawatha.

2. Nawalage Anushka Udayanga Cooray, 306/1, Neligama, Ragama.

3. Registrar, Land Registry, Gampaha.

Defendant-Respondent-Respondents Before: Hon. Justice Kumudini Wickremasinghe Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena Hon. Justice Sobhitha Rajakaruna Counsel: P. Peramunugama for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant.

S.N. Vijithsingh for the 1st and 2nd Defendant-Respondent-

Respondents.

Argued on: 05.03.2025 Written Submissions:

By the Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant on 19.10.2021.

By the 1st and 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents on

10.03.2025.

Decided on: 14.05.2025 Samayawardhena, J.

Factual matrix By Deed No. 981 dated 18.04.1989 the 1st defendant gifted the land described in the 6th schedule to the plaint to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the 1st defendant revoked that gift by Deed No. 159 dated 24.06.2014, and transferred the land by Deed No. 176 dated 24.12.2014 to the 2nd defendant.

The plaintiff filed this action in the District Court of Gampaha seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the land described in the 6th schedule to the plaint, and cancellation of Deed Nos. 159 and 176. The Land Registrar of Gampaha was made the 3rd defendant to give effect to the said orders in the event he succeeds.

The 1st and 2nd defendants filed a joint answer seeking the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, while the 3rd defendant filed a separate answer. The District Judge fixed the case for pre-trial on 23.03.2018.

In the meantime, the 1st and 2nd defendants filed a joint list of witnesses and documents, and proposed admissions and issues with copies to the opposite parties. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant also did so.

On 23.03.2018, when the case was taken up for the pre-trial, the revocation papers of the then existing proxy and the new proxy were filed on behalf of the 1st defendant, and the 1st and 2nd defendants tendered separate amended answers. The plaintiff objected, and the District Judge, after hearing the parties by way of written submissions, refused to accept the amended answers by order dated 28.11.2018, as the Court was not satisfied that the conditions stipulated in section 93(2) of the Civil Procedure Code had been fulfilled by the 1st and 2nd defendants. In reaching that finding, the District Judge analysed the statutory provisions and relevant case law in the said order.

Being dissatisfied with this order, the 1st and 2nd defendants appealed to the High Court of Civil Appeal of Gampaha with leave obtained. By judgment dated 09.01.2020, the High Court set aside the order of the District Judge without referring to any statutory provisions or case law governing the amendment of pleadings in a civil case, and directed the District Judge to accept the amended answers. I regret that I am unable to comprehend the reasoning (quoted below) upon which the High Court set aside the order of the District Judge.

අතිරේක දිසා විනිසුරුතුමියරේ 2018.11.20 වන දින තී්඿ුව රෙස අවධානය රයාමු කිරීරේදී, 2 වන වි්තතිකාර රේතසේකරු රවනුරව්඿ කරුණු ෙක්වා ඇ්තර්ත 2 වන වි්තතිකාර රේතසේකරුට සිුවන ලෙ අගතිය සේබ්඿ධරය්඿ උග්ත අතිරේක දිසා

විනිසුරුතුමිය කරුණු රෙස අවධානය රයාමු කර රනාමැති ෙෙනමය.

අධිකරණය විසි්඿ රමම නඩුරේ රගානු රකාට ඇති ෙැමිණිලිකාර වගඋ්තතරකරුරේ ෙැමිණිල්ල රෙස අවධානය රයාමු කිරීරේදී නිරීක්ෂණය කලහැකි කරුණක් වුරේ, ෙැමිණිලිකාර වගඋ්තතරකරු 2014.06.24 වන දිනැති ලියා සහතික කරන ලෙ ඔ්᭨ුවක් සහ 2014.12.24 වන දිනැති ලියා සහතික කරන ලෙ විකුණුේකරයක් ශුනය සහ බලරහිත කර ගැනීමට අයැදීමක් කර ඇති ෙෙනමය.

අධිකරණය විසි්඿ රමම අවස්ථාරේදී 1 වන වි්තතිකාර රේතසේකරුරේ සංර ෝධිත උ්තතරරේ ආයාචනය රෙස අවධානය රයාමු කිරීරේදී එකී කරුණ සේබ්඿ධරය්඿ වලංගුතාවයක් ලබා ගැනීමට අයැදීමක් කර ඇති ෙෙනම අධිකරණයට නිරීක්ෂණය කලහැක.

ඒ අනුව එම කරුණ සේබ්඿ධරය්඿ ෙැමිණිලිකාර වගඋ්තතරකරු කිසිු ආකාරයක වික්ි්᭨තභාවයකට ෙ