Jayaratne vs. Chandraratne and another
JAYARATNE VS. CHANDRARATNE AND ANOTHERCOURT OF APPEALBASNAYAKE, J.
CALA 196/2004 (LG)
DC NEGOMBO 4747/LSEPTEMBER 3, 2010
Civil Procedure Code – Section 169- Evidence of witnesses – Procedureof taking down evidence – Application to correct proceedings – CouldCourt refuse such an application? – Role of the lawyer is to assistCourt?
Evidence of witnesses shall be taken down in writing by the Judgeor in his presence and hearing and under his personal directionand superintendence.
However for convenience, evidence of witnesses is taken down bystenographers in shorthand and typed later. While typing steno-graphers may make mistakes and what is typed may not be whatthe witnesses said in evidence – therefore it is the duty of Court tocorrect proceedings.
When an application is made by a lawyer for the Court to correctproceedings the Court cannot refuse that application for the reasonthat the lawyer is only assisting Court with regard to the functionof Court.
The Judge has erred by refusing to correct proceedings.
LEAVE TO APPEAL from an order of the District Court of Negombowith leave being granted.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
MucLitha Premachandra for plaintiff-petitioner.Rohan Sahabandu for defendant-respondent.
September 03rd 2010ERIC BASNAYAKE, J.
Both Counsel were heard in support of their respectivecases.
The Plaintiff-Petitioner filed this application to havethe order dated 20.05.2004 of the learned District Judge ofNegombo set aside. By this order the learned Judge hadrefused to correct proceedings of 13.05.1999 as the defenceobjected to the proceedings being corrected. 1 am of theview that it is the duty of Court to maintain a properrecord. Sometimes proceedings may not be correctly recordedand unless Counsel mentions that proceedings are notcorrectly recorded, it may remain uncorrected. By so informingCounsel only assists Court to maintain a proper record.
The evidence of witnesses shall be taken down inwriting by the Judge, or in his presence and hearing and un-der his personal direction and superintendence (Section 169of the Civil Procedure Code). However for convenience, evi-dence of witnesses is taken down by stenographers in short-hand and typed later. While typing stenographers may makemistakes and what is typed may not be what the witnesssaid in evidence. Therefore it is the duty of Court to correctproceedings.
When an application is made by a lawyer for theCourt to correct proceedings the Court cannot refuse that
Jayaratne vs. Chandmmtne and another(Brie Basnayake, J.)
application for the reason that the lawyer is only assistingCourt with regard to the function of Court. Therefore I amof the view that the Judge has erred by refusing to correctproceedings and I set aside the order dated 20.05.2004marked ‘L’. I direct the learned District Judge to inquireinto this and rectify the record with the necessary correction.In the event proceedings cannot be conveniently corrected,the witnesses may be recalled to ascertain what was said inevidence. The Court is further directed to proceed with thecase without further delay. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
District Court directed to proceed u/ith the case.
JAYARATNE vs. CHANDRARATNE AND ANOTHER