IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

1. Gulam Hussain Ali Asgar Shabbir No. 980/4, CA/WRIT/181/2024 Wickremasinghe Place, Ethul Kotte, Kotte.

2. Adam Investments PLC No. 264, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14.

3. Adam Expo Limited No. 264, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14.

4. Network Communications (Pvt) Ltd No. 264, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14.

5. Ceylon and Foreign Traders PLC No. 414/18, Cyril C Perera Mawatha, Colombo 13.

6. Adam Apparels (Pvt) Ltd No. 264, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14.

7. Adam Capital PLC No. 264, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14.

8. Adam Carbons Limited No. 264, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14.

9. Lawrance Mervyn Fitzgerald Adams No. 6C, Palyra Court, Palmyra Avenue, Colombo 03.

PETITIONERS Vs.

1. LOLC Finance PLC No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardene Mawatha, Rajagiriya.

2. LOLC Holdings PLC (Formerly Lanka Orix Leasing Company PLC)

No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardene Mawatha, Rajagiriya.

RESPONDENTS Before: Sobhitha Rajakaruna J.

Dhammika Ganepola J.

Counsel: Dappula De Livera PC with Prasanna de Silva, Ravindranath Dabare and Dimitra Abeysekara for the Petitioners.

Palitha Kumarasinghe PC with Priyantha Alagiyawanna for the Respondents.

Supported on: 25.03.2024 Synopsis of Submissions: Petitioners - 01.04.2024 Respondents - 01.04.2024 Decided on: 05.04.2024 Sobhitha Rajakaruna J. (Acting P/CA)

The Petitioners of the instant Application primarily seek a writ of Certiorari quashing the order made by the learned Additional District Judge on 11.08.2023 in the case number DDR/0222/2022 (‘X4’) of the District Court of Colombo. By the said impugned order the learned Additional District Judge has decided to make the order nisi, issued against the Petitioners, absolute in terms of section 6 (2) (c) of the Debt Recovery (Special Provisions)

Act No. 2 of 1990.

When this matter was taken up for support, the learned President’s Counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents raised two preliminary objections and moved that this Court first consider such preliminary objections and dismiss the action in limine.

Not making the learned Additional District Judge a party.

The first preliminary objection raised on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents is that the Petitioners have not made the Additional District Judge who made the impugned order a party to the instant Application. The primary contention of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents is that the relevant party against whom relief is sought must be identified clearly and there should be no room for uncertainty.

The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents, referring to various precedent cases such as Wijeratne, Commissioner of Motor Traffic v. Ven. Dr. Paragoda Wimalawansa Thero and 4 others (2011) 2 Sri. L. R. 258, contend that public authorities whose decision or action is being contested, are necessary parties in writ applications and as such, should be included as respondents in the proceedings. Similarly, the Petitioners argue that it is a trite law that all persons adversely affected should be made parties. The rationale behind the arguments of the said Respondents seems to be the alleged bounden duty of the person who made the impugned order to comply with any writ issued by the court should the court issue one. Thus, it is contended that the failure to make such a person a Respondent is fatal, and cannot be cured by amendment or substitution.

Moreover, the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents contend that the reference to judge of the court of any first instance referred to in the Article 140 of the Constitution should be taken as similar persons in following the rule of interpretation within ‘ejudem generis’ and such judge of any court should not be taken as a different or exceptional class of persons. Those Respondents also argue that a writ cannot be issued to halt the execution of the decree nisi once it has been made absolute under Act No. 2 of 1990 since i