IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Lokumanage Sumitra Perera, “Yamuna”, Veedagama, Bandaragama.

Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant in SC/APPEAL/71/2023 Suriarachchige Rupawathi, Suriarachchige Kamalawathie, Suriarachchige Ariyasena, All of Veedagama, Bandaragama.

5th, 6th and 7th Defendant- Respondent-Appellants in SC/APPEAL/72/2023 SC/APPEAL/71/2023 Vs.

SC/APPEAL/72/2023 WP/HCCA/KAL/LA/09/2020 DC HORANA 6490/P

1. Dissanayakage Dona Leelawathie, 2. Dissanayakage Dona Wimalawathie, 3. Wijemanna Mohottige Kanthi, 4. Suriarachchige Sumanadasa, 8A. Don Lalith Chandana Dissanayake, All of Veedagama, Bandaragama.

Defendant-Respondent-

Respondents

9A. Kankanige Somaratne, 74, “Samantha”, Veedagama, Bandaragama.

Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent

10. K.S. Perera, 11. K. Somasiri, Both “Samantha”, Veedagama, Bandaragama.

12. A. Somawathie, Veedagama, Bandaragama.

Defendant-Respondent-

Respondent Before: Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena Hon. Justice Kumudini Wickremasinghe Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena Counsel: G. Samaranayake for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant in SC/APPEAL/71/2023.

Shyamal Collure with Prabhath Amarasinghe for the 5th to

7th Defendant-Respondent-Appellants in SC/APPEAL/72/2023.

Yuwin Matugama with Oshadi Fernando for the 9A, 10th and 11th Defendant-Petitioner-Respondents.

Argued on: 24.06.2024 Decided on: 09.10.2024 Samayawardhena, J.

This is a partition action filed by the plaintiff in the District Court of Horana on 04.09.1997. After the trial, the judgment was delivered by the District Court on 07.03.2007. Being aggrieved, four parties preferred appeals to the High Court of Civil Appeal of Kalutara, which delivered four judgments on 17.11.2011. On appeal, this Court, by judgment dated 11.09.2015, set aside the judgments of the High Court and directed the High Court to hear the appeals afresh on the basis that the said judgments had been delivered without taking steps to substitute the 9th defendant who had passed away while the appeals were pending in the High Court. Thereafter, the 9(a) defendant was substituted in place of the deceased 9th defendant.

However, when the case record was sent to the High Court on the second occasion, the High Court, in my view, adopted a more convenient approach. The new Bench of the High Court, by judgment dated 02.04.2018, summarily set aside the judgment of the District Court by stating “it is our view that the judgment dated 07.03.2007 is a judgment, which does not fall within section 187 of the Civil Procedure. Therefore, we set aside the judgment and send this case back to the District Court for the present District Judge to write the judgment on the same pedigree, but if he so wishes he can let the parties to adduce more evidence and the learned District Judge is further directed to hear the parties in terms of section 184 of the Civil Procedure Code.”

Before reaching this conclusion, the High Court, by two sentences referred to two contentions made by the appellant’s counsel against the District Court judgment. However, it did not clarify whether it accepted these two contentions or whether they were sustainable in law. The High Court then stated that the District Judge had failed to provide reasons for the conclusion.

Judicial decisions must be clear and specific, without leaving room for varying interpretations. Clarity and specificity in judicial decisions are essential to maintain the integrity of the law, foster public confidence in the judiciary, promote legal certainty, and uphold the rule of law. The above order of the High Court, in my view, is vague. The District Judge has been directed to write the judgment “on the same pedigree” perhaps because, according to the proceedings, the parties agreed to a composite pedigree at the trial. When the direction is to write the judgment based on the same pedigree accepted by Court, it precludes the parties from adopting new positions which deviate from that pedigree.

Thereafter, the District Judge was further d