IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Contempt of Court in terms of Article 105 (3) of the constitution of the Constitution of the Republic read together with the provisions of the Judicature Act, Civil Procedure Code, case law etc.

CA- COC-16/22 Debt Conciliation Board Case No:

41012 H.D.I. Wijewardena 397/3, kotikawatta, Angoda.

Petitioner V.

1. J.M. Wijebandara, 50, Rajamaha Vihara Rd, Mirihana

2. K. Munagamaarachi Galborella, Kelaniya.

3. H.D. Sachintha I. Perera

226/1, Bolabotuwa, Bandaragama Accused Before : N. Bandula Karunarathna P/CA, J.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Counsel: D. Karunaratne for the Petitioner.

I.Mohomed PC for the 1st Respondent.

Manohara De Silva PC with H. Munasinghe for the 2nd Respondent Rasik Dissanayake for the 3rd Respondent Written 05.04.2024 (by the 1st Respondent) Submissions: 18.04.2024 (by the 2nd Respondent) On: 05.04.2024 (by the 3rd Respondent)

Argued On: 15.02.2024 Order On: 08.05.2024 B. Sasi Mahendran, J This Order deals with the Preliminary Objections raised by the Respondents on the maintainability of this application.

The Petitioner, by petition dated 30.12.2022 invoked this Court’s Jurisdiction alleging that the Respondents were in contempt of court under Article 105(3) of the Constitution, contending that the Respondents have given false information to the Debt Conciliation Board (herein as to referred as a Board) to substitute the heirs of the deceased in Case No

41012 of the Debt Conciliation Board.

The first Accused is the Counsel and the 2^nd Accused is the Instructing Attorney at Law who appeared for the 3rd Accused who is the debtor in the said action.

Before we address the preliminary objections, a consideration of a brief narrative of the events occurred in its’ chronological order is necessary to be considered under the contempt proceedings.

Damith Jayanatha who is the husband of the 3^rd Respondent (now deceased) has filed a petition in the Debt Conciliation Board on 05.06.2008 on the premises that, Deed No.27 which is stated as a Deed of Sale was in fact a mortgage. While the inquiry was pending, the said Jayantha died and his wife and 2 children have made an application as heirs to the said deceased for substitution. On 10.08.2009 the said application was dismissed by the Debt Conciliation Board stating that the application was not signed by the deceased. Thereafter, the 3^rd accused made an application to the Board under section 54(1) of the said ordinance to vacate that order. Subsequently, the Board revised its own order dated 21.04.2010 and allowed the substitution. It should be noted that Dharmasiri Karunaratne who was named as a Creditor to the said action has sold the property to the present Petitioner who was not a party to the Board, after the order of dismissal (10.08.2009). The said Dharmasiri Karunarathna Who is the counsel for the petitioner in this action has sold the property to the Petitioner.

Thereafter, both the Petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the said order. The Court of Appeal made an Order in case number 463/2010 by dismissing the said action. Thereafter they filed an application before the Supreme Court bearing the case no 100/2013 challenging the order of the Court of Appeal dated 15.06.2012. Supreme Court by its order dated 03.02.2016 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and allowed the Attorney at law to substitute the said Respondents.

Thereafter, after the several years later (after the 7 years) this application was filed on

29.12.2022 praying for the following reliefs, a) Accept this case and list it to support in the Open Court.

b) Issue notice to the accused.

c) Hold an inquiry into the matter.

d) Punish the Accused for Contempt of Court as per Sec.55 of Judicature Act & the applicable law.

e) Grant cost and such other and further relief as to Your Lordships’ Court shall deem meet.

Charge sheet To: All the