SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

RANASINGHE v. PIERIS


Ranasinghe V. Pieris

1954 Present : de Silva, J.

A. D. P. RANASINGHE,
Appellant, and H. A. R. PIERIS,
Respondent

S. C. 33-C. R. Gampaha, 5,438

Appeal-Security for costs of appeal-Procedure for furnishing it-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 756 (1) and (3), 757.

A notice of security for costs of appeal given in terms of section 756 of the Civil Procedure Code is not invalid if the amount of security is not specified in it.

Where the security bond was perfected upon its acceptance by an officer of the court and before the security was accepted by the Judge-

Held, that the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 756 of the Civil Procedure Code could not be invoked to cure the defect.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Gampaha.

N. K. Choksy, Q.C., with A. W. Goonewardene and John de Saram, for the defendant appellant.

H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with P. Ranasinghe, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 21, 1954. DE SILVA, J.-

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Gampaha, declaring the plaintiff respondent entitled to a decree for rent, ejectment, and damages. The judgment was delivered on 22nd October 1





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top