IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal against the Judgment of the Commercial High Court of Colombo in terms of sections 5 and 6 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 10 of 1996 as amended read with Chapter LVIII of the Civil Procedure Code.

SC (CHC) APPEAL 46/2017 Freight Links International (Private)

Commercial High Court Limited Case No. HC/Civil/ 285/2020/MR Level 07, Access Towers 278, Union Place, Colombo 02.

Plaintiff Vs.

M.J.N.J. Fernando No. 290, Thoduwawa North, Thoduwawa.

Carrying on registered business under the name, Style and firm of Deshan International Imports And Exports.

Defendant AND NOW BETWEEN M.J.N.J. Fernando No. 290, Thoduwawa North, Thoduwawa.

Carrying on registered business under the name, Style and firm of Deshan International Imports And Exports.

Defendant-Appellant Vs.

Freight Links International ( Private)

Limited Level 07, Access Towers 278, Union Place, Colombo 02.

Plaintiff- Respondent BEFORE : P. PADMAN SURASENA J.

JANAK DE SILVA J.

ACHALA WENGAPPULI J.

COUNSEL : Aruna Pathirana Arachchi with Mrs. Inoka Weerakkodi for the Defendant-Appellant.

Chandaka Jayasundara, PC with Mr. Rehan Almeida for the Plaintiff-Respondent.

ARGUED &

DECIDED : 17-01-2024.

P. PADMAN SURASENA, J.

This appeal has been fixed for argument in today’s list of cases. When this case was called in Court, Ms. Inoka Weerakkodi Attorney-at-Law made an application for the postponement of the argument on the basis of a difficulty of the Counsel, who is due to appear for the Defendant-Appellant in Court today.

Ms. Inoka Weerakkodi, Attorney-at-Law specially made this application in the capacity of the Instructing Attorney, claiming that she is the Instructing Attorney for the Defendant-Appellant.

On the subsequent questioning by Court also, she continued to maintain the fact that she is the Instructing Attorney on record for the Defendant-Appellant. However, we have perused the documents in the brief and found that it is not Ms. Inoka Weerakkodi, Attorney-at-Law who is the Instructing Attorney on record for the Defendant-Appellant but, one Ms. Shermila Muthalif, Attorney-at- Law who has filed the proxy dated 11-07-2023 which was filed in Court on the same date.

Therefore, said Ms. Shermila Muthalif must stand as the Instructing Attorney on record for the Defendant-Appellant.

When the Court brought this to the notice of Ms. Inoka Weerakkodi Attorney-at- Law, she thereafter admitted that she is not the Instructing Attorney on record for the Defendant-Appellant.

Therefore, submissions made by Ms. Inoka Weerakkodi, Attorney-at-law cannot be accepted as a submission on which we should act.

The application for a postponement made by Ms. Inoka Weerakkodi, claiming to be the Instructing Attorney on record for the Defendant-Appellant, was on the basis that Mr. Aruna Pathirana Arachchi has been retained to appear as the Counsel today for the Defendant-Appellant and said Mr. Aruna Pathirana Arachchi is unable to appear before the Court today owing to a personal difficulty. However, we observe that Mr. Aruna Pathirana Arachchi has never appeared for the Defendant-Appellant as the Counsel before.

There is no material before us to satisfy ourselves that said Mr. Aruna Pathirana Arachchi is the Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant. We are also not satisfied that a proper application for postponement is before Court as the submission made by Ms. Inoka Weerakkodi Attorney-at-Law has now been held to be a submission on which we cannot act.

We have found that Ms. Inoka Weerakkodi has no status in this case, which she has now admitted.

In these circumstances, we have neither a basis to grant a postponement in this case nor a basis to entertain the submissions made by Ms. Inoka Weerakkody Attorney-at-Law. Therefore, we refuse to grant a postponement in this case.

We proceeded to hear the submissions made by Mr. Chandaka Jayasundara, PC appearing for the Plaintiff-Respondent and concluded the argumen