IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Seylan Bank PLC, (formerly Seylan Bank Limited)

No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

Having branch at No. 315-317, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12.

Plaintiff SC Appeal No. 237/2014 Vs.

SC/HCCA/LA: 447/14 HCCA/A/No.12/14 Mohamed Rasheed Mohamed Farook, Case No. DDR/69/13 No. 185, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12.

Defendant AND NOW In the matter of an application under sections 754(2) and 757 of the Civil Procedure Code read together with section 5A of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions)

(Amendment) Act, No. 54 of 2006.

Seylan Bank PLC, (formerly Seylan Bank Limited)

No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

Having branch at No. 315-317, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12.

Plaintiff-Appellant Vs.

Mohamed Rasheed Mohamed Farook, No. 185, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12.

Defendant-Respondent AND NOW In the matter of an appeal under section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act, No. 54 of

2006.

Seylan Bank PLC, (formerly Seylan Bank Limited)

No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

Having branch at No. 315-317, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12.

Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs.

Mohamed Rasheed Mohamed Farook, No. 185, Old Moor Street, Colombo 12.

Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Before : Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J Vijith K. Malalgoda PC, J Yasantha Kodagoda PC, J Counsel : Palitha Kumarasinghe PC, with Nuwan Rupasinghe for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant Murshid Maharoof with Shaib Ahamed for the defendant-respondent-respondent Argued on : 14^th of September, 2020 Decided on : 29^th of November, 2021 Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo exercising civil jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to as “the Civil Appellate High Court”), which dismissed an interlocutory appeal preferred against an order of the District Court of Colombo, granting leave to appear and show cause against the decree nisi under section 6 of the Debt Recovery (Special Provisions) Act, No. 2 of 1990, as amended.

Facts of the case The plaintiff-appellant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff bank”) had instituted action in the District Court of Colombo against the defendant-respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”) under the said Act, and pleaded that the defendant had requested for an overdraft facility of up to Rs. 13 million on his current account. Further, he had furnished a letter of guarantee dated 19^th May, 2005, issued by Ceylinco Profit Sharing Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the guarantor company”), which is a sister company of the plaintiff bank, as security for the said facility. In the said letter of guarantee, the guarantor company stated that the defendant had deposited a sum of Rs. 13 million with the guarantor company, and the said letter of guarantee was issued against the said deposit.

Thereafter, the plaintiff bank had entered into an agreement with the defendant on the 20^th of May, 2005, to grant an overdraft facility of up to Rs. 13 million at an interest rate of 15% per annum.

It was further pleaded that the defendant had subsequently requested to enhance the said overdraft limit. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank had agreed to enhance the limit of the said facility and entered into another agreement with the defendant on the 9^th of June, 2005, subject to the condition that any sum drawn in excess of Rs. 13 million would be charged at an interest rate of 30% per annum. It is pertinent to note that the enhanced amount of the said overdraft facility is over and above the guarantee furnished by the defendant, and he did not furnish any additional security to obtain the enhanced facility.

Thereafter, the defendant had utilized the said facility from time to time and, as at the 30^th of July, 2010, he had overdrawn his current account up to a sum of Rs. 18,527,978/66.

Hence, the plaintiff bank had sent letters of demand to the defendant and the guaran