ORDER

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

This Order contemplates whether to grant interim relief and issue summons to the Respondent.

The Petitioners instituted this Contempt of Court application against the Respondent on 19.09.2024 on the basis that the Respondent has intentionally and contumaciously submitted a fabricated survey plan in cases bearing Nos.CA/WRIT/558/2021 and CA/WRIT/559/2021, which is different from the allegedly same plan submitted for the same premises in the case bearing No. CA/WRIT/293/2021. All these writ applications deal with whether the particular Deed of Trust No. 2125 dated 21.11.1935 attested by John Wilson, Notary Public of Colombo is a Muslim charitable trust or Wakf. It should be noted that the Petitioners in this case have made an application before the Wakf Tribunal taking actions against the trustees. The Respondent along with other trustees has taken up the objection that this is not a Muslim Charitable Trust. The Chairman of the said Tribunal has formed the opinion that the particular deed is a Muslim charitable trust, against which the Respondents have instituted these writ applications before this Court. The Petitioners state that, in CA/WRIT/293/2021, the impugned survey marked as X3 identifies a ‘Mosque’ which is part and parcel of the said building whereas, in CA/WRIT/558/2021 and CA/WRIT/559/2021, the said structure is identified as a ‘prayer room’.

The Petitioners’ contention is that the alteration to the survey plan was not accidental or inadvertent but was carried out intentionally and done to put forward the position that this is not a Muslim charitable trust and that the act of the Respondent in fabricating the survey plans amounts to contempt of Court under Article 105(3) of the Constitution. It should be noted that, when the Petitioners instituted this application, the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal Or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024 was in operation.

The present application for contempt, filed on 19.09.2024, seeks the following reliefs as articulated by the Petitioners.

a. Issue notices and/or summons in the first instance and/ or warrant against the Respondent

b. Issue a Rule Nisi/Charge on the Respondents in respect of having committed the offence of contempt of court;

c. Hear and determine the application against the Respondents for having committed the offences of contempt of court;

d. Punish the respondents for having committed the offences of contempt of court;

e. Call for and examine the case records in CA/Writ/293/2021, CA/Writ/558/2021 and CA/Writ/559/2021;

f. Grant Costs;

g. Grant such and other further relief as shall seem meet to your Lordships’ Court 

This Court is mindful that, pursuant to Article 105(3) of the Constitution, both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka are designated as Superior Courts of record, vested with all corresponding powers. This authority encompasses the power to adjudicate cases of contempt of court, whether the act of contempt is committed within the precincts of the Court or externally. Punishments for such contempt can range from imprisonment to fines, or a combination thereof, as deemed appropriate by the Court.

In this context, it is pertinent to address the concept of ‘contempt of court’ for further elucidation.

In Oswald’s, ‘Contempt of Court’ (3rd edition on page 6) notes:

“To speak generally, Contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during the litigation.”

Borrie and Lowe in their book ‘The Law of Contempt ’, 3^rd edition at page 1 have stated that:

“The rules embodied in the law of Contempt of Court are intended to uphold and ensure the effective administration of justice. Lord Simon said in AG v Times Newspapers Ltd that they are the means by which the law vindicates the public interest in the due administration of justice. The law does not exi