MUKUNTHAN

VS.

PLEXUS COTTON LTD

SUPREME COURT
JAYASURIYA, C.J.
MALALGODA, J.
FERNANDO, J.
SC/SPL/LA/27/2012
CA/REVISION/1865/05
DC COLOMBO 6375/SPL
JUNE 12, 2019

Supreme Court Rules 1990, Rule 8(3)-Non-compliance-Automatic dismissal-Discretion of the court

Non-compliance with Rule 8(3) of the Supreme Court Rules 1990 does not result in the automatic dismissal of the application. The court has the discretion to decide based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Cases referred to :

1. Woodman Exports (Pvt) Ltd v. Commissioner General of Labour and others [2012] BLR 238

2. A.H.M. Fowzie and two others v. Vehicle Lanka (Pvt) Ltd [2008] 1 Sri LR 23

3. Sudath Rohana and another v. Mohammed Cassim Mohammed Zeena and another [2011] BLR 277

4. Tissa Attanayake v. Commissioner General of Elections and others [2011] 1 Sri LR 220

5. Samantha Niroshana v. Senarath Abeyruwan (SC/SPL/LA 145/2006, SC Minutes of 02.08.2007)

6. Attorney General v. Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake and others (SC/ APPEAL/67/2013, SC Minutes of 28.06.2013)

7. Udaya Shantha v. Jeewan Kumaratunga and others [2012] BLR 129

8. Colombo Business School Ltd v. Sri Lanka Tea Board (SC/HC/ LA/69/2018, SC Minutes of 25.01.2021)

9. Attorney General v. Lokugalappathilage Cyril (SC/SPL/ LA/272/2013, SC Minutes of 10.10.2016)

10. Rohitha Peiris and another v. Doreen Peiris (2015) Vol XXI BLR 101

11. Nestle Lanka PLC v. Gamini Rajapakse (SC/HC/LA/54/2018, SC Minutes of 20.09.2020)

12. Wijesinghe v. Tenderlea Farm (Pvt) Ltd (SC/SPL/LA/159/2017, SC Minutes of 17.09.2020)

13. Kiriwanthe v. Navaratne [1990] 2 Sri LR 393

14. Ediriwikrama v. Rathnasiri (SC/APPEAL/ 85/2004, SC Minutes of 18.12.2012)

15. Sirisena v. Gunawardena (SC/SPL/LA/133/15, SC Minutes of 02.08. 2017)

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Uditha Egalahewa, P.C., with N. Ashokbharan and Amaranath Fernando.

Shammil Perera, P.C., with Primal Ratwatte and D. Perera for the Petitioner-Petitioner-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

March 3, 2021

M.N.B. FERNANDO, J.

This is a Special Leave to Appeal application filed against the judgement of the Court of Appeal dated 13-01-2012. By the said judgement the Court of Appeal set aside the Order made by the District Court pertaining to the refusal of an application for registration of a foreign judgement obtained from a Court in the United Kingdom, under the provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements Ordinance No. 41 of 1921.

When this application was taken up for granting of Special Leave to Appeal before us, the learned President's Counsel for the Petitioner-

Petitioner-Respondent ("the Respondent") and the Respondent- Respondent-Petitioner ("the Petitioner") appraised the Court of the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, when this matter was initially taken up for support on 28-05-2012 with regard to non-compliance with Rule 8(3) of the Supreme Court Rules of 1990 by the Petitioner and moved that the said objection be taken up for determination in the first instance.

Having heard the parties before this Court with regard to the said preliminary objection and also having considered the many sets of written submissions tendered to Court prior to the said date and subsequent to the hearing of submissions on the said date, I now proceed to consider the said preliminary objection.

However, prior to examining the said preliminary objection raised by the learned President's Counsel for the Respondent, I wish to refer to certain facts, albeit brief, relevant to this application which in my view is important to understand the nature of this Special Leave to Appeal application.

01. The Respondent, a company registered in the United Kingdom entered into a contract of sale of cotton yarn with Veyangoda Textiles Mills Limited, a company incorporated in Sri Lanka, in the year 1998.

02. The Petitioner being a shareholder of the said Veyangoda Textiles Mills L