IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Restitutio-in-Integrum and Revision under Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal Case No:

CA/RII/51/2023 D.C. Kalutara Case No :

534/RE Beligahamullage Peiris Irosh Kavinda Galhena Road, Welipitiya, Dharga Nagar.

Plaintiff- Petitioner -Vs-

1. Nakandalage Don Sureka Srimali No.68, Horawala Road, Dharga Nagar.

And, Koswattegoda, Dharga Nagar

2. Nakandalage Don Amila Eranda Weerasinghe No.68, Horawala Road, Dharga Nagar.

And, Koswattegoda, Dharga Nagar 3. Nakandalage Don Ajantha Pushpakumara No.70, Horawala Road, Dharga Nagar.

And Koswattegoda, Dharga Nagar

4. Nakandalage Don Thilak Shantha No.70, Horawala Road, Dharga Nagar.

And Koswattegoda, Dharga Nagar 5. Denagama Liyanage Gihan Sampath No.68C, Horawala Road, Dharga Nagar.

And Koswattegoda, Dharga Nagar 6. Benthara Mahakumarage Madhawa Sampath Mahakumara, “Prasad” Kuttiweligoda, Dharga Nagar.

Defendant- Respondents Before: Hon. D.N. Samarakoon, J.

Counsel: Sahiru Jayasinghe with Ms. Dulani Peiris instructed by Ms. Chamali Ranatunga for the Plaintiff-Petitioner.

S. Ponnamperuma for the Defendants-Respondents.

Argued on: 12.01.2024 Written submission tendered on: 08.12.2023 by the Plaintiff- Petitioner.

14.12.2023 by the Defendants-

Respondents.

Decided on: 12.02.2024 D. N. Samarakoon J., The learned counsel for the 06^th respondent submitted, that, if paragraph (b) and (g) of the petition are granted, there is no need to grant paragraph (c).

The said paragraphs of the prayer to the petition dated 27.11.2023 are as follows, (b) act in revision and set aside the order of the learned district judge of Kalutara dated 16th November 2023 (c) exercise the powers of restitutio in integrum and restore the plaintiff petitioner the status quo he ha been as at the 15h November 2023 in respect of the property to the schedule of the plaint (g) act in revision and make order directing the district court of Kalutara to hear the trial in (case No.) 534/RE from the point of dismissal The argument is that if (b) and (g) are granted the petitioner will be restored to the original position. Hence it is argued that the exercise of the revisionary powers itself is sufficient and the Civil Appellate High Court of Kalutara had that power.

It is said, that this is a classic example to bypass the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Provinces under Act No. 54 of 2006. The petitioner has coupled the words “restitutio in integrum” to seek relief from this Court. If applications of this nature are entertained it will open floodgates. It amounts to a departure of the intention of the legislature in establishing the High Court of the Provinces with the revisionary powers.

All restitutio in integrum applications are covered by revision, but not vice versa. He cited Perumpuli Arachchige Sajith Dilhan Alutwatte vs. Perumpuli Arachchige Bandutissa Henegamagedara C. A. 40/2009 dated 27.03.2009 where His Lordship Justice Chithrasiri at page 04 said, "The present application before this Court is an application for revision as well as restitutio intergum. In such a case the High Courts of the Provinces also has the jurisdiction to entertain the same since an application for revision also has been made although it has been coupled with restitutio in integrum.

At this stage it is necessary to say that all restitutio in integrum applications could be covered by a revision application even though all revisions do not fall into the category of restitution”.

The 06th respondent also draws the attention of this Court to C. A. RI 15 2018

02.11.2018 in which Justice M. A. Samayawardhena said, “I must state that there is no magic in the word restitution, as the relief, in my view, can also be sought in a revision application. Although, in law, revision and restitutio in integrum are two different applications, in practice, they go hand in hand, and, almost all the time, are sought in