SUDATH ROHANA AND ANOTHER V MOHAMED ZEENA AND ANOTHER

SUDATH ROHANA AND ANOTHER V.
MOHAMED ZEENA AND ANOTHER

SUPREME COURT
DR. SHlRANIA. BANDARANAYAKE,CJ.
EKANAYAKE ,J.AND
IMAM,J.
S.C.H. C. CA LA. NO 111/2010
H.C. (Southern Province) NO. SP/HCCA/GA/LA/0030/2009
D.C. GALLE NO. 1417/L
JULY 14,2010, SEPTEMBER 03,2010, AUGUST 31,2010

Supreme Court Rules - Leave to appeal - Failure to comply with Rules - Rules 8(3), 27(3) and 27(8) - To ensure that all necessary parties are properly notified on the matter which is before the Supreme Court- Rule 8 - To ensure that all parties are notified in order to give a hearing - Do the Supreme Court Rules 1990 apply to appeals from the High Courts (Civil Appeal).

When this application was taken for support for leave to appeal, the Plaintiff - Judgment Creditor - Respondent (Respondent) took up a preliminary objection stating that the Petitioners had not complied with Rule 8(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1990 and hence the Petitioner's application should be rejected in limine.

The objection raised by the Respondent was that the Petitioners had not given notice to the Respondents as required by the Supreme Court Rules.

Held:

(1) Rule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document