IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application made under Article 105 (3) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka For Contempt of Court.

1) Hee Jung Kim Alias Kim Hee Jung No. 51A-24/2-23rd Floor Empire Tower Baybrooke Place, Colombo 2 And also Supreme Court No;

SC Contempt No. 03/16 No 47, Alexandra Place, Colombo 07 And Hoiryong Poonglin Iwant Apt 203-

701 Howon-dong 308 139 Uijeongbusi Kyeongkido South Korea

2) Some Rupali Jayasinghe No 8/5, Pansalahena Road Kolonnawa Petitioners Vs Don Bandumali Jayasinghe [nee Welikala]

No. 40/19 Longden Place, Colombo 7 Respondent BEFORE: Buwaneka Aluwihare PC, J.

Murdu N.B. Fernando PC, J.

P. Padman Surasena J.

Counsel: Kuvera de Zoysa PC with Piume Kulatilake and Ameer Maharoof on the instructions by Sanjay Fonseka for the Petitioner.

Razik Zarook PC, Seevali Amithirigala PC with Sazana Karunathilake, Dharani Sirisena for the Respondent.

Argued on: 10.07.2020 Decided on: 15.07.2021 Judgement of the Court Aluwihare PC.J., A Rule issued by this Court on 26^th July 2016, called upon the Respondent, Don Bandumali Jayasinghe (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Bandumali Jayasinghe”) to show cause as to why she should not be dealt with for an offence of contempt of the Supreme Court, punishable under Article 105 (3) of the Constitution, committed, intentionally and/or willfully, by making false statements to this Court.

The Rule In the exercise of the Jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 105 (3) of the Constitution the Rule issued against Bandumali Jayasinghe was to show cause as to why she should not be punished for having committed the following offences of contempt of the Supreme Court;

That the respondent-;

. (a) Submitted a written complaint to this Court against Ms. Amarathunga Arachchige Niduk Wasana Perera, Attorney-at-Law (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Niduk Perera) relating to her professional conduct in the District Court of Colombo case bearing No: DDV/0054/2008 and in the complaint did willfully make the following false statements:

(i) That she never received any notice, summons and/or any decree in the said divorce action.

(ii) That she never instructed Niduk Perera to file proxy on her behalf and/or to appear and tenders an answer and/or to take any notice of the said divorce action.

(iii) That Niduk Perera AAL had tendered a forged proxy on her behalf in the said divorce action and had filed an answer without her instructions.

2. In the Affidavit [dated 27^th June 2014] submitted to this Court in SC Petition No:P/19/2014 relating to the said complaint against Niduk Perera, the Respondent did willfully make the following false statements;

(i)That she had had no knowledge of the District Court of Colombo Case No.DDV/00054/2008 until she became aware of the Testamentary Proceedings bearing number DTS/00151/2012 in the District Court of Colombo and had never instructed Ms. Niduk Perera to appear in that divorce action on her behalf.

(ii) That she never received any summons in the said divorce action No:DDV/00054/2008 and that the signature claiming to be hers at page 43 of the document marked as “X1” is not her signature.

(iii) That she had never met Niduk Perera and did not even know her by name.

(3) On or about 28^th May 2014, when questioned by the Supreme Court in SC Petition No: P/19/2014 relating to the same complaint, she did willfully and falsely state that the she had never seen Niduk Perera before and that it was the first time that she was seeing her.

Facts On 21^st January 2014, Bandumali Jayasinghe by way of a letter addressed to His Lordship the Chief Justice made a complaint against Attorney-at-Law Ms. Niduk Perera (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Niduk Perera”). In the said complaint Bandumali Jayasinghe claimed that after having perused the case record of the Testamentary Action bearing No. DTS/00151/2012 which had been instituted by the 1^st Petitioner to these pro