D. Thotawatte, J.

The Petitioner–Respondent–Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Respondent”) had on 04^th May 2021 filed an information under Section 66(1)(b), under the Primary Court’s Procedure Act No. 44 of 1979, in the Magistrate Court of Ratnapura alleging that on 5^th March 2021, the Respondent-Petitioner-Petitioner (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Petitioner”) had forcibly dispossessed him from the impugned land.

Learned Magistrate of Ratnapura acting as Primary Court Judge, having inquired into this information, delivered the order dated 21^st July 2022, holding in favour of the Respondent.

Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner had invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court of the Sabaragamuwa Province holden in Ratnapura against the order of the Learned Magistrate. However, the learned High Court Judge had affirmed the Order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the application of the Petitioner.

Being dissatisfied with the Order of the learned High Court Judge dated 12^th March 2025, the Petitioner has preferred this instant revision application seeking to set aside the Order of the learned High Court Judge dated 12^th March 2025 and the Order of the learned Magistrate dated 21^st July 2022.

On the day when this matter was fixed for support, the Counsel appearing for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this application due to non-compliance with Rule 3(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules 1990.

Counsel for both parties having made submissions, have in addition filed written submissions on behalf of their respective positions.

It is the contention of the Counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner had failed to annex a duly certified copy of the record of the case No. 56940/A of the Magistrate’s Court, Ratnapura, even though the revision seeks to set aside the order made therein. Further the record attached to the High Court brief cannot be considered as a certified copy of the Court of First Instance record within the meaning of Rule 3(1)(b).

Rule 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) of Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules 1990 is as follows;

Rule 3(1)(a)

“Every application made to the Court of Appeal for the exercise of the powers vested in the Court of Appeal by Articles 140 and 141 of the Constitution shall be by way of petition, together with an affidavit in support of the averments therein, and shall be accompanied by the originals of documents material to such application (or duly certified copies thereof) in the form of exhibits. Where a petitioner is unable to tender any such document, he shall state the reason for such inability and seek the leave of the Court to furnish such document later. Where a petitioner fails to comply with the provisions of this rule, the Court may, ex mero motu at the instance of any party, dismiss such application."

Rule 3(1)(b)

“Every application by way of revision or restitutio in integrum under Article 138 of the Constitution shall be made in like manner together with copies of the relevant proceedings (including pleadings and documents produced), in the Court of First instance, tribunal or other institution to which the application relates.

Rule 3(1)(a) read with Rule 3(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules of 1990 operates as an essential procedural safeguard to ensure that the appellate and revisionary courts are properly equipped with authentic and complete records before exercising their jurisdiction. These provisions, as comprehensively set out in Shanmugavadivu v. Kulathilake, [1(2003) 1 SLR 215] and reaffirmed in Urban Development Authority v Ceylon Entertainments Ltd., [2(2004) 1 SLR 95], are not intended as mere technical requirements but as imperative rules that preserve the integrity and reliability of the process.

Under Rule 3(1)(a), every application invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 140 and 141 must be accompanied by the originals or duly