ORDER

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Petitioner filed this revision application praying inter alia to revise the order of the Learned Judge of the Provincial High Court of Eastern, holden in Ampara by order dated 19.07.2024, dismissing the Petitioner’s application that the Petitioner has failed to establish any exceptional circumstances and that the order is illegal, which shocks the conscience of the Court.

The relevant excerpt of the said order is reproduced below for easy reference;

Page 112

“තවද ඉහත කරුණුවලට අමතරව ⷁᮅතිශ ෝධන ශෙත්සමකට අදාලව අධිකරණය විසින් මුලිකව සලකා බැලිය යුතු ⷁᮅධාන තත්වයක් වන සුවිශ ේෂී කරුණු ඉදිරිෙත් වීමක්ද අදාළ ⷁᮅතිශ ෝධන ශෙත්සශමහි ඉදිරිෙත් කර තිශබන කරුණු ශකශරහි අවධානය ශයාමු කිරීශේදී ශෙනී ශනායයි.”

Against the said order, the Petitioner has invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution.

The question that we are faced with is whether this Court can exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in respect of the order of the High Court of the Provinces in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction in terms of Article 154P (3) (b) of the Constitution.

Originally, the revisionary jurisdiction was vested with the Court of Appeal under Article 138 of the Constitution.

Article 138 of the Constitution, before the 13th Amendment, reads as follows:

“The Court of Appeal shall have and exercise subject to the provisions of the Constitution or of any law, an appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law which shall be committed by any Court of First Instance, tribunal or other institution and sole and exclusive cognizance, by way of appeal, revision and restitutio in integrum of all causes, suits, actions, prosecutions, matters and things of which such Court of First Instance, tribunal or other institution may have taken cognizance.”

After the 13th Amendment, according to Section 5 of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provinces) Act No. 19 of 1990, read with Article 154P (3) (b) of the Constitution, enacted by the 13th Amendment, entitles any person to file a revision application in the High Court of the Province.

According to the judgment of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (1987) 2 SLR 310, the Supreme Court held that, on page 323;

“The Bills do not effect any change in the structure of the Courts or judicial power of the People. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal continue to exercise unimpaired the several jurisdictions vested in them by the Constitution. There is only one Supreme Court and one Court of Appeal for the whole Island, unlike in a Federal State. The 13th Amendment Bill only seeks to give jurisdictions in respect of writs of Habeas Corpus in respect of persons illegally detained within the Province and Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition against any person exercising within the Province any power under any law or statute made by the Provincial Council in respect of any matter in the Provincial Council list and appellate jurisdiction in respect of convictions ‘and sentences by Magistrate’s Courts and Primary Courts within the Province to the High Court of the Province, without prejudice to the executing jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Vesting of this additional jurisdiction in the High Court of each Province only brings justice nearer home to the citizen and reduces delay and cost of litigation.”

This judgment was cited and followed by His Lordship Eric Basnayake J in Sharif and Others vs. Wickramasuriya and Others (2010) 1 SLR 255 at page 265;

“I am of the view that the jurisdiction enjoyed by the Court of Appeal through Article 138 remains intact. Through Article 138 one has the liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal or to resort to a Provincial High Court in terms of Article 154P (3) (b). If one chooses to go to the High Court, an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court with leave first obtained from the High Court (Section 9 of the Act 19 of 1990). If one invokes the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal un