connote an ongoing process, in order to connote the ongoingprocess the word used is ‘maintain’. See section 545 of the CivilProcedure Code (formerly numbered as section 547). See alsoAlagakawandi v Muttumal C) (1920).
According to article 23(1) of the Constitution ‘All laws and sub-ordinate legislation shall be enacted or made and published inSinhala and Tamil, together with a translation thereof in English.The relevant part of the Sinhala text of the amendment of 2000
The other argument made on behalf of the appellant was thatthe plaintiffs-respondents cannot maintain their action in view ofthe provisions of section 22 of the Interpretation Ordinance asamended by Act, No.18 of 1972. Section 22 of the InterpretationOrdinance was intended to take away the jurisdiction of Courts ina certain category of cases. Where there is in any enactment the
said so. In view of the clear and unambiguous Sinhala word usedby the Legislature we do not have to attempt to interpret themeaning of the English word ‘entertain’ used in the English trans-lation of the amending Act.
The Legislature has not
This makes it very clear that the effect of the amendment is toprevent courts from accepting such an application. It applies tothe future. If the Legislature intended to make the new provisionapplicable to pending actions the legislature could have used the

‘acceptance’ which in Sinhala is
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2003] 3 Sri L.R
expression ‘shall not be called in question in any Court’, or anyother expression of similar import, in relation to any order, deci-sion or determination which any person or authority is empow-ered to make under such enactment, no court shall have juris-diction to pronounce upon the validity of such order or decision. 100
The argument of the appellant, based on the said section 22is tenable, if at all, in view of the amendment made by the Act,
No. 54 of 2000. Before it was enacted, there was nothing in sec-tion 19 of the Bank of Ceylon Ordinance to make the provisionsof section 22 of the Interpretation Ordinance applicable to a res-olution passed under that section. Therefore when the plaintiff’sfiled their action (before the amending Act was passed) therewas nothing in section 19 of the Bank of Ceylon Ordinance toattract the provisions of section 22 of the InterpretationOrdinance as a bar to the plaintiff’s action. As I have already indi- nocated, the rights of the parties are decided as at the date of theplaint (action). A provision of law which bars actions similar to theaction brought by the plaintiffs was not in existence at the timethe plaintiffs’ action was filed. Act, No.54 of 2000 has no retro-spective effect. Accordingly the amended section 19 cannot beused to invoke the provisions of section 22 of the InterpretationOrdinance to scuttle the plaintiffs’ action. I therefore reject theappellant’s argument based on section 22 of the InterpretationOrdinance. In the result I uphold the learned trial Judge’s con-clusion that the Bank of Ceylon (Amendment) Act, did not apply 120to the pending action of the plaintiffs. The appeal is therefore dis-missed with costs in a sum of Rs.5000/-.
Application dismissed