PERERA v. PERERA.

PERERA v. PERERA.

C. R., Kalutara, 4,400.

Contempt of Court-Resistance to execution of decree under Small Tenements Ordinance-Jurisdiction of Court of Requests-Procedure-False statement in affidavit of Fiscal's officer-False return by Deputy Fiscal-Courts Ordinance, No. 1 of 1889, s. 59-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 325, 372, 795 and 800.

The only jurisdiction which a Court of Requests has, in the matters of contempt, is that conferred by section 59 of The Courts Ordinance (No. 1 of 1889), which enacts that " every District Court, Court of Requests, and Police Court shall, for the purpose of maintaining its proper authority and efficiency, have a special jurisdiction to take cognizance of, and to punish by the procedure and with the penalties in that behalf by law provided, every offence of contempt of Court committed in the presence of the Court itself and all offences which are committed in the course of any act or proceeding in the said Courts respectively, and which are declared by any law for the time being in force to be punishable as contempt of Court."

Where the Commissioner of a Court of Requests convicted the defendant in a proceeding under the Small Tenements Ordinance (No. 11 of 1882) of contempt of Court for resisting the execution of a writ of possession issued under the Ordinance.

Held, that such conviction was bad for want of jurisdiction, inasmuch as the act complained of was not committed in the presence of the Court itself, and there is no law declaring such act to be punishable as a contempt of Court.

Held, that section 372 of the Civil Code, which enacts that " the Fiscal or Deputy Fiscal, or other person specially appointed . by the Governor in that behalf, is hereby authorized to administer the oath or affirmation which is requisite to the making of the affidavit in the last section mentioned. And every officer who makes a false statement of fact in any such affidavit commits (in addition to any offence of which under the provisions of the Ceylon Penal Code he may by so doing be guilty) an offence which is punishable as contempt of Court," applies to returns to process issued under Ordinance No. 11 of 1882, there being no provision in the latter Ordinance inconsistent with the said section of the Civil Code.

Held, further, a Fiscal's officer who makes a false statement of fact in affidavit relating to the execution of a writ of possession issued under Ordinance No. 11 of 1882 commits a contempt of Court cognizable under section 59 of The Courts Ordinance; but such false statement, in order to be punishable, must be made wilfully and with intention to pervert the course of justice.

The Commissioner also convicted the Deputy Fiscal who administered the oath to the Fiscal's officer, whose affidavit contained the false statement, and who made a return to Court, based on such affidavit, of contempt of Court.

Held, that section 372 did not apply, and that the conviction was bad for want of jurisdiction.

THE plaintiff sued the defendant under the Small Tenements Ordinance, No. 11 of 1882, and obtained a decree ordering the defendant to deliver possession to the plaintiff of the house of which he was alleged to be tenant under plaintiff. The writ of possession was issued to the Deputy Fiscal for execution, who entrusted it to one of his officers for that purpose. The defendant having resisted the execution of the writ, the plaintiff petitioned under chapter LXV. of the Civil Code, that the defendant be punished for contempt of Court. The Commissioner convicted the defendant of contempt of Court and sentenced him, under section 800 of the Civil Code, to undergo thirty day's simple imprisonment.

The Fiscal's officer was also convicted under section 800 of the Civil Code of contempt of Court, in that he stated in the affidavit made by him, relating to the execution of the writ of possession by him, that his attempt to enforce the writ and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document