IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006 against a judgment delivered by the Provincial High Court exercising its jurisdiction under section 5A of the said Act.

1. Arulampalam Gnaneswaran, SC Appeal No. 104/2017

2. And his wife Suganthini Dutch Road, SC (HC CA) Leave to Appeal Alaveddy West, Alaveddy.

Application No. 94/2016 PLAINTIFFS Civil Appellate High Court Vs Jaffna Case No. 33/2015

1. Kasilingam Sritharan, DC Jaffna Case No. L/157/2013

2. And his wife Manohari Sithankeni Santhiyadi, Sithankeni.

DEFENDANTS AND THEN BETWEEN

1. Kasilingam Sritharan, Sithankeni Santhiyadi, Sithankeni.

1^ST DEFENDANT - APPELLANT Vs

1. Arulampalam Gnaneswaran, 2. And his wife Suganthini Dutch Road, Alaveddy West, Alaveddy.

PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN

1. Arulampalam Gnaneswaran, 2. And his wife Suganthini Dutch Road, Alaveddy West, Alaveddy.

PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT -

APPELLANTS Vs

1. Kasilingam Sritharan, Sithankeni Santhiyadi, Sithankeni.

1^ST DEFENDANT - APPELLANT -

RESPONDENT

2. And his wife Manohari Sithankeni Santhiyadi, Sithankeni.

2^ND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-

RESPONDANT Before : P. Padman Surasena, J Janak De Silva, J Mahinda Samayawardhena, J Counsel : N. R. Sivendran with Renuka Udumulla for the Plaintiff -

Respondent - Appellants S. Kumarasingham for the 1^st Defendant - Appellant -

Respondent Argued on : 05.05.2022 Decided on : 27.06.2023 P Padman Surasena J:

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Plaintiffs) instituted action relevant to this case on 14.08.2013 in the District Court of Jaffna against the 1^st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 1^st Defendant) and the 2^nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 2^nd Defendant) seeking a declaration of title to the land described in the schedule to the plaint and the ejectment of the said Defendants from the said land.

As per the first journal entry of the District Court record, upon the Plaintiff filing the plaint along with summons, the learned District Judge had taken steps to issue summons on the Defendants returnable on 11.09.2013. Thereafter, the learned District Judge had taken further steps on several dates when the case was called in Court. This was with a view of having the summons served on the Defendants. As the 1^st Defendant had not responded to summons, the learned District Judge on

20.11.2013 had fixed the case for ex parte trial against the 1^st Defendant.

Upon the Fiscal of the District Court reporting his failure to serve summons on the 2^nd Defendant on multiple occasions, the learned District Judge had ordered summons to be served on the 2^nd Defendant by way of substituted service. i.e., by pasting the summons on the door of the house where the 2^nd Defendant had last resided. Consequent to the above order, the Fiscal had reported on 05.02.2014, that the summons had been served on the 2^nd Defendant by way of substituted service. It is also to be noted that on the same day, i.e., on 05.02.2014, an Attorney-at-Law also had appeared on behalf of the 2^nd Defendant in Court (Journal Entry No. 5) and the Court had ordered the case to be called in Court on 12.02.2014. When the case was called on 12.02.2014, neither the 2^nd Defendant nor her agent had appeared in Court. The learned District Judge had then fixed the case for ex parte trial against the 2^nd Defendant as well.

Accordingly, the ex parte trial against both Defendants commenced, concluded and the ex parte decree was entered on 26.02.2014. Thereafter, the ex parte decree was served on the 1^st Defendant on 22.05.2014 and on the 2^nd Defendant by way of substituted service on 07.05.2014. Upon the ex parte decree being served on the Defendants, the 1^st Defendant on 28.04.2014, had filed proxy, petition and affidavit, seeking to purge his default and