C.P. Kirtisinghe – J

Petitioner had filed this writ application seeking for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision of the 1^st Respondent – The Divisional Secretary, Upper Division, Gampola not to release the deposit of Rs.2,860,000.00 to the Petitioner, for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent to release the aforesaid deposit to the Petitioner and for the interim relief prayed for in the Petition.

On 21.09.2017 there had been a settlement entered between the Petitioner and the 3^rd Respondent. A memorandum dated 18.09.2017 containing the contents of the settlement had been tendered to Court. According to the contents of that memorandum and according to the terms of settlement recorded by Court on 21.09.2017 it has been recorded that the 3^rd Respondent has no objection in releasing the deposit of Rs. 2,860,000.00 held by the 1^st Respondent with interest accrued to the Petitioner by the 1^st Respondent. The 3^rd Respondent had agreed to withdraw the appeal bearing no. FA/115/16 filed in the Civil Appellate High Court of Kandy against the order made in case no. SPL/58/2011 in DC Gampola and the Petitioner had agreed not to execute the Writ against the 3^rd Respondent in DC Gampola case no. SPL/58/2011. On 26.03.2019 the 3^rd Respondent has tendered an affidavit stating that he had never given instructions to his Registered Attorney – at – Law to settle the case in any manner whatsoever before this Court. He says that his Registered Attorney- at – Law had requested for the signature of the 3^rd Respondent to a document a few minutes prior to the calling of the case in Court on that day. The 3^rd Respondent says that his knowledge in English is limited to placing his signature in English and the 3^rd Respondent had signed the document on the understanding that it was a document that has to be submitted on his behalf for the purpose of objecting to the Petitioner’s application. He further states that the contents of the said document were not read over and explained to him. The 3^rd Respondent states that he is not agreeable to the aforesaid terms of settlement. After about one month’s time he became aware of the terms of settlement and requested his Registered Attorney – at – Law to bring to the notice of Court of his disagreement but the Registered Attorney had not acted accordingly. On 05.09.2018, the 3^rd Respondent had tendered an Affidavit to Court and informed Court that he is objecting to the aforesaid terms of settlement being accepted and requested for an order accordingly. In this Affidavit, the 3^rd Respondent says that he is not inclined to proceed with the settlement and he will be withdrawing from the aforesaid terms of settlement. The Petitioner had filed a statement of objections to the application of the 3^rd Respondent and states that at all material times, the 3^rd Respondent knew and understood the contents of the said motion and in fact the 3^rd Respondent acted on the contents of the motion. Prior to this motion, the parties signed a document containing the identical terms of settlement at the office of the Lawyers of the 3^rd Respondent (Document marked B).

The Petitioner states that the conduct of the 3^rd Respondent amounts to a contempt of court. Therefore, the Petitioner had prayed for a dismissal of the application of the 3^rd Respondent and prays that this Court should hold that the 3^rd Respondent had committed an act of contempt of court and punish the 3^rd Respondent accordingly.

It is the case of the 3^rd Respondent that he signed the aforesaid memorandum with the mistaken belief that he was signing a document for the purpose of objecting to the Petitioner’s writ application and he never knew that he was consenting to the aforementioned settlement. So, he says that he had signed it by ‘mistake’.

Chitaley and Rao in “Commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure” 1908, 7 ^th Edition - Volume III (1963) at pages 3509-3510 state thus:-

“A compromise decree is but a