BASNAYAKE, G.J.—SeUathurai v. Raja
Present : Basnayake, C.J., and de Silva, J.
SELLATHURAI, Appellant, and RAJ A and another, RespondentsS. C. 309—D. C. Colombo, 36064fM
jLppeal—Notice of appeal—Requirement that it should be addressed to the respondentpersonally—Civil Procedure Code, a. 756.
Section 756 of the Civil Procedure Code requires that notice of appeal must beaddressed to the respondent personally, although it may be served on his Proctor.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with V. A. Kandiah, for Defendant-Appellant.
B. Wikramanayake, Q.C., with iS. Sharvananda, for 1st Plaintiff-Respondent.
2nd Plaintiff-Respondent in person.
March 17, 1958. Basnayake, C.J.—
A preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal has been taken onthe following two grounds :—
That the petition of appeal does not satisfy the requirements of
•section 755 of the Civil Procedure Code, and
that the notice of appeal has not been given to the 1st plaintiff-despondent personally.
The first objection is sound and must be upheld. A petition of appeal-cannot be received unless it is drawn and signed bj^an advocate or proctor,-or in the manner prescribed by the proviso to section 755 of the Code. Thepresent petition of appeal does not satisfy the requirements of either thatsection or its proviso, and should not have been received.
The second objection is that notice of appeal has not been addressed tothe 1st respondent but to her proctor. Learned counsel for the 1strespondent submits that section 756 of the Civil Procedure Code requiresdhat notice of appeal must be addressed to the respondent personally butthat it may be served on his proctor. He relies on the case of Sivaguru-•nathan v. Doresamy et al.1. This objection too is entitled to succeed forthe reasons given in the judgment cited by learned counsel. We thereforereject the appeal with costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant has invited us to deal with this caselay way of revision. He submits that important questions of law arisein the appeal and that in the interests of justice this Court should•satisfy itself as to the legality of the judgment and has invited us toproceed to do so at this hearing itself. He cites the case of Abdul Cader■v. Sittinisa et al. 2 in support of bis submission. We are not disposed to
1 (1951) 52 N. L. R. 207.
2(1951) 52 N. L. R. 536.
WEERASOORIYA, J.—Tlabcobrlea-ne v. Jrulo European Export Ltd.
-accede to the learned counsel’s request for an immediate hearing. Butin view of the submissions of learned counsel that important questions oflaw are involved in this appeal we are prepared to deal with the case inrevision under section 753 of the Civil Procedure Code after the party•dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned District Judge lias lodgedproper papers with the Registrar of this Court.
DE Silva, J.—I agree.
SELLATHURAI , Appellant, and RAJA and another , Respondent