112-NLR-NLR-V-58-ALICE-NONA-Appellant-and-EWSOHAMY-and-others-Respondents.pdf
1957Present:Basnayake, C.J., and PuIIe, J.ALICE NOXA, Appellant, and EWSOHAMY anrl others, Respondents*S. C. 153—D. C. (Inly.) Cfantjiaha, 3543(P
AppealCopy of petition of appeal—Duty of appellant to furnish it in time—Civil
Procedure Code, s. 750 (1) and (3).
Failure to furnish a copy of the petition of appeal in terms of section 7.~>G (I)
• of tho Civil Procedure Code at or before the timo the security is accepted anddeposit mode i3 fatal to the appeal and is not- a matter in respect of which reliefmay he granted under section 750 (3).'
i^LPPEAL from an order of the District Court, Gampaiia.
H. IV. Jaymvardene, Q.C., with P. llanasinghe, for 3rd Defendant-Appellant.
H. A. Koallegoda, for 1st and 2nd Plaint iffs-Respondents.
Marcli 22, 1957. Basnayake, C.J.—
Objection is taken to the reception of this"appeal on the ground that theappellant has failed to comply with the requirement of section 756 (1) of thethe Civil Procedure Code to furnish the District Court with copies of thepetition of appeal for service'I8h the respondents along with the noticeof appeal. It is not disputed that the appellant failed to comply withthe requirement of that section on or before the date on .which securit3<-was accepted. It was argued that as the copies of the petition of appealwere furnished before the date on which the notice of appeal was madereturnable the appellant should not be penalised for his default. Theonly question for consideration is whether this is a matter in which thisCourt lias the power to grant relief under section 756 (3) of the CivilProcedure Code. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn ourattention to tho case of de Silva v. Seenathmnma et al.x in which it liasbeen held by a full Bench of this Court that failure to furnish a copy of thepetition of appeal at or before thetime flic security is accepted and depositmade is fatal and section 756 (3) does not permit relief to be granted bythis Court in respect of it. We aro bound by that decision and mustuphold the preliminary objection taken by the respondents to tho hearingof this appeal. Wo therefore reject the appeal with costs.
PuLLE, J.—I agree.
Appeal rejected-.
1 41 N.L.R. 241.