008-NLR-NLR-V-62-A.-EDDIE-PERERA-Petitioner-and-YAPAS-LTD-Respondent.pdf
22
Eddie Per era v. Yapas, Ltd.
1958 Present : H. N. G. Fernando, J., and T. S. Fernando, J.
A. EDDIE PERERA, Petitioner, and YAPAS, LTD., Respondent
S. G. 263—Application under Rule 18 of the Appellate Procedure (PrivyCouncil) Order, 1921, for an extension of time to deliver prints of therecord in S. G. Case No. 426}D.G. Colombo No. 31882 M to
the Registrar
Privy Council—Election to print the record in Ceylon—Time limit—Application jorextension of time—Proof of due diligence necessary—Appellate Procedure{Privy Council) Order, 1921, Rides 11, 18.
When an appellant fails to comply with Rule 11 of the Appellate Procedure(Privy Council) Order, 1921, an application under Rule IS for extension of timewill not be allowed unless material is furnished bo show that tho failuie to complywith Rule 11 was occasioned by some circumstance beyond the control of theappellant.
T. S. PHliNANDO, .f.—Hrlrlie /Vi-cm «. Y'tiptut, LtUl.
23
Application under Rule 18 of the Appellate Procedure (PrivyCouncil) Order, 1921.
Sir Lalita Rajapakse, Q.C., with M. L. de Silva, for the petitioner.
Thiagalingam, Q.C., with N. G. J. Riistomjee, for the respondent.
Gur. adv. milt.
November 24, 1958. T. S. Fernando, J.—
This is an application by a party who has obtained final leave to appealto the Privy Council from a judgment of this Court for an extension ofsix months’ time to deliver the prints of the record to the Registrar.As the appellant elected to print the record in Ceylon, Rule 11 of theAppellate Procedure (Privy Council) Order, 1921, required him to de*liver the prints of the record to the Registrar within two months afterobtaining final leave to appeal. Final leave had been granted on 8thNovember, 1957. The prints should therefore have been delivered tothe Registrar before 8th January, 1958. The present application ismade under Rule 18 of the same Order which enables the Court for goodcause shown to extend the time allowed by this Order for doing anyact, notwithstanding that the time has expired. This application waspresented to Court on 15th July, 1958, more than six months after theexpiry of the time allow ed for the delivery of the prints of the record.
There is nothing in this application or in the affidavit filed in supportof it to show why there was delay in getting the record printed. It hasbeen submitted to us by learned counsel who appeared for the appellantthat there is delay in the Registry in preparing a certified copy of arecord. If there is such delay, a vigilant appellant can always applyto this Court for an extension of time to do the act required of him byRule 11, and a delay on the part of the Registry- in certifying a recordwill no doubt constitute good cause for extending the time allowed fordelivering the prints of the record.
The appellant, appears to have caused the certified record to be for-warded to the printers of his choice, The Times of Ceylon Ltd., only on21st February, 1958. After more than two months had expired heappears to have caused the record to be recalled from the Times ofCeylon Ltd. on the ground that the latter’s charges were excessive andforwarded to another printer of his choice, the Associated Printers,on 24th April, 1958. According to his affidavit, he learnt about the21st June, 1958. that the printing press of the Associated Printers hadbeen seized on a writ of execution issued against them. The recordwould then appear to have been recalled and sent back to the Timesof Ceylon Ltd., and the extension of time is prayed for to enable theTimes of Ceylon to make the prints.
24
T. S. FERNANDO, J.—Eddie Perera v. Tapas, Ltd.
As Was said by Qratiaen J. in Samel Appuhamy v. Peter Appuhamy,x“ when the time allowed by the Rules contained in the Appellate Pro-cedure (Privy Council) Order, 1921, for doing any act necessary forprosecuting an appeal to the Privy Council has already expired, thisCourt should not grant an extension of time for the doing of that actunless the applicant can show that he has throughout exercised duediligence in prosecuting his appeal, and that his failure to comply withthe Rule Was occasioned by some circumstance beyond the control ofhimself and his legal advisers No material has yet been furnished tothis Court to satisfy it that the failure (a) to comply with Rule 11 or(b) to do up to date the act required by that Rule has been occasionedby some circumstance beyond the control of the appellant, and in thatview of the matter the application for extension of time must be refusedwith costs.
H. N. G. Fernando, J.—I agree.
Application refused.
1 (1951) 52 N. L. R. at 499.