IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under and in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provisions (Special Provinces) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions)

(Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006.

Chandradeepa Shanthapriya Perera SC / APPEAL / 52 / 2017 Abeysinghe, SC / HCCA / LA / 332 / 2016 WP / HCCA / COL / 84 / 2015 / LA No. 1084B, Liyanagoda, D.C (Colombo): 01124 / 2013 / DMR Hokandara Road, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF Vs

1. University of Colombo, P O Box 1490, Kumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 07.

2. Prof. Thilak Hettiarachchi No. 90, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia.

3. Prof. Thapani Manel Sulochana Atukorale, No. 110/8, Kotte Road, Colombo 08.

DEFENDANTS AND THEN BETWEEN Prof. Thapani Manel Sulochana Atukorale, No. 110/8, Kotte Road, Colombo 08.

3^rd DEFENDANT - PETITIONER Vs

1. Chandradeepa Shanthapriya Perera Abeysinghe, No. 1084B, Liyanagoda, Hokandara Road, Pannipitiya PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT

2. University of Colombo, P O Box 1490, Kumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 07.

3. Prof. Thilak Hettiarachchi No. 90, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia.

1^st and 2^nd DEFENDANT –

RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Prof. Thapani Manel Sulochana Atukorale, No. 110/8, Kotte Road, Colombo 08.

3^rd DEFENDANT – PETITIONER –

APPELLANT Vs

4. Chandradeepa Shanthapriya Perera Abeysinghe, No. 1084B, Liyanagoda, Hokandara Road, Pannipitiya PALINTIFF – RESPONDENT –

RESPONDENT

5. University of Colombo, P O Box 1490, Kumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 07.

6. Prof. Thilak Hettiarachchi No. 90, Templers Road, Mount Lavinia.

1^st and 2^nd DEFENDANTS –

RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS BEFORE : Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC. J P. Padman Surasena, J A. H. M. D. Nawaz, J COUNSEL : Dr. Romesh De Silva, PC with Sugath Caldera for the 3^rd Defendant –

Petitioner – Appellant.

Riad Ameen with Zam Zam Ismail for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant – Respondent-

Respondents.

Anura Meddegoda, PC with Asela Muthumudalige, Isuru Deshapriya and Nadeesha Kannangara for the Plaintiff –

Respondent – Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 28.06.2023 DECIDED ON : 23.08.2024 A. H. M. D. Nawaz, J.

1. The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (the “Plaintiff”) was a laboratory technician at the University of Colombo (the “1^st Defendant”), while the 2^nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent (the “2^nd Defendant”) was the Vice Chancellor of the said university and the 3^rd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant (the ‘3^rd Defendant”) was the head of the Department of Biology and Molecular Biology.

2. The Plaintiff instituted this action against the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants on June 21, 2003 in the District Court of Colombo inter alia for a sum of Rs. 5 million as damages caused by the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants by conducting a purported disciplinary inquiry against the Plaintiff.

3. The 3^rd Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant (the “3^rd Defendant”) prior to filing her answer, filed a motion dated February 24, 2014 and brought to the notice of court that-

a) the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the 3^rd Defendant b) the plaint does not conform to the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code c) the plaint does not conform to the imperative provisions regarding the pleadings in defamatory action d) there is a misjoinder of parties and causes of action e) the cause of action is prescribed before law f) the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the 3^rd Defendant

4. The said motion had been filed in accordance with the propositions decided in cases such as Actalina Fonseka v Fonseka, [(1989) 2 Sri LR 95.] and Fernando v Standard Chartered Bank.

5. Since these were questions which the parties wanted the court to examine as preliminary matters of law, the court agreed to have these questions disposed of in limine.

6. The learned Additional District Judge of Colombo delivered her order dated June 26, 2015 overruling the aforesaid objections raised by the 3^rd Defendant and decided to proceed with the trial.

7. The 3^rd Defendant preferred an applicati