IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka under and in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution.

Thuraiappah Nithyanandan No. 12902/1, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5.

Plaintiff SC Appeal No: 101/2009 Vs.

SC/SPL/LA Application No. 47/2009 CA/LA Application No: 223/2003 District Court of Colombo Case No. 27115/M Sherman Sons Limited.

No.23, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10.

Defendant AND BETWEEN Sherman Sons Limited.

No.23, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10.

Defendant-Appellant Vs.

Thuraiappah Nithyanandan. No. 12902/1, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5.

Plaintiff-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Sherman Sons (Private) Limited.

(formerly known as Sherman Sons Limited.)

No.23, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10.

Presently of No. 194F, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5.

Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs Thuraiappah Nithyanandan No. 12902/1, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5.

Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondent Before : Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J Achala Wengappuli, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Counsel : Sanjeewa Jayawardena, PC with Ms. Lakmini Warusewitane, Gimhani Aththanayake and Punyajith Dunusinghe for the Defendant-Appellant-

Appellant Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent was absent and unrepresented Argued on : 18^th of July, 2023 Decided on : 29^th of February, 2024 Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J This is an appeal filed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 2^nd of February, 2009 which affirmed the Order of the District Court of Colombo dated 11^th of June, 2003, where it was held that the alleged cause of action pleaded in the District Court was not prescribed.

The plaint The plaintiff-respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”) filed a plaint in the District Court dated 27^th of April, 2001. In the said plaint, he stated that on the 22^nd of December, 1986, the defendant-appellant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant- company”), made a false complaint to the Fraud Investigation Bureau of the Police alleging that the respondent attempted to fraudulently obtain a sum of Rs. 950/- from the said appellant- company through a letter dated 17^th of December, 1986 by fraudulently and falsely entering a trade advertisement of the appellant-company in a diary for the year 1987.

The Police stated that the respondent attempted to cheat the appellant-company of Rs. 950/-. It was alleged that this was done by producing the forged letter dated 17^th of December, 1986, signed by the manager of the appellant-company stating that the said manager had approved the publication of an advertisement by the appellant company.

Subsequently, based on said complaint, the respondent was arrested on the 22^nd of December, 1986 by the Police and was produced in the Magistrate’s Court of Maligakanda. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate remanded him. Therefore, the Police instituted proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court for the offence of attempting to cheat the appellant-company of a sum of Rs. 950/-.

The respondent had pleaded not guilty to the said charge, and the case proceeded to trial. However, at the end of the trial the learned Magistrate, by judgment dated 7^th July, 1999 acquitted the respondent of the said charge. Further, the appellant-company had not appealed against the said judgment.

At the trial, the respondent stated that he never claimed any money in respect of the said advertisement published by the appellant-company. He further stated that the letter under reference was neither written by him nor did it contain his signature.

Moreover, the respondent stated that, though the appellant-company was well aware that he never cheated, charges were pursued against him, without a valid reason. Further, the respondent stated that the appellant-company maliciously set the law in motion against him without a reasonable cause and initiated the said action b