K. K. WICKREMASINGHE, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 15.02.2017. The crux of this matter centers around the question of law based on which leave to appeal was granted, which is;

“Did the Court of Appeal err by dismissing the case filed by the Petitioner before the District Court as regard to the Substituted 3^rd Defendant- Respondent-Respondent whereas he had not appealed against the judgment of the learned District Judge to the Court of Appeal?”

Therefore, this discussion hinges on whether a party to an action should be allowed to lawfully invoke an objection to, or dispute a finding in, a lower court’s judgment even if the said party had not filed an appeal against the said judgment of the lower court.

The facts of the case are stated briefly as follows:

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Appellant) was, by letter dated 27.06.1991 (marked P3), appointed as the Executive Director of the Board of the 3rd Defendant-Respondent- Respondent Company (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 3^rd Respondent). Thereafter, the Appellant was also appointed as the General Manager of the 3^rd Respondent Company by letter dated 29.06.1991 (marked P4).

The original 1^st and 2^nd Defendants who were respectively the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to the Treasury had, in their capacity as holders of 50% of share capital of the 3^rd Respondent Company, removed the Plaintiff- Respondent-Appellant and three others from the Directorate of the 3rd Respondent and appointed 4 others as Directors. The Appellant filed action in the District Court of Colombo against the original Defendants praying inter alia for a declaration that the removal of the Appellant as a director was illegal, null and void and thereby claiming a sum of Rs. 500,000/- as compensation for pain of mind, and social and financial loss suffered as a result of his removal.

The original Defendants jointly filed their Answer to dismiss the Appellant’s action stating that the removal of the Appellant from his position was lawful and in accordance with the terms of Article 10 of the Articles of Association of the 3^rd Respondent Company.

The Learned District Judge delivered judgment on the 12^th of July 1999 in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant granting him Rs. 200,000/- in damages payable by the 1^st-3^rd Defendants jointly or severally. The original 1^st and 2^nd Defendants then preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

However, the 3^rd Defendant refrained from appealing to the Court of Appeal.

During the pendency of the application before the Court of Appeal, the original 3^rd Defendant, Seemasahitha Wennappuwa Janatha Santhaka Pravahana Sevaya, was substituted by the Sri Lanka Transport Board established under the Sri Lanka Transport Board Act No. 27 of 2005. By virtue of section 3 (2) (e) of the Conversion of Public Corporations or Government Owned Business Undertakings into Public Companies Act, No. 23 of 1987, all actions and proceedings instituted by or against the amalgamated bus companies, of which the 3^rd Defendant company was one, were vested with the Sri Lanka Transport Board, thus enabling the Board to be substituted as the 3rd Defendant-Respondent.

The Court of Appeal delivered judgment on the 15^th February 2017 allowing the Appeal and dismissing the action filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent- Appellant in the District Court. The Court held that the Learned Trial Judge had misapplied Article 10 of the Articles of Association and that the termination of the Appellant’s services was not illegal, null and void. Moreover, the granting of compensation to the Appellant was held to be unsubstantiated and bad in law.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant filed a Special Leave to Appeal application to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while granting leave, rejected the legal issues stated in the Petition of Appeal and discharged the 1B and 2A Defendant-Appellant-Respondents from the proceedings, on