023-NLR-NLR-V-18-COUDERT-v.-ELIAS.pdf
( 80 )
1914.
Present: Lascelles C.J. and De Sampayo A.J.
COUDEBT v. ELIAS.446—D. C. Colombo, 36,298.
Conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council—Notice ©/ intendedapplication to respondent—Time for giving notice.
Tbe judgment of the Supreme Court in this case wae deliveredon February 26, 1914. The petition for conditional leave to appealto the Privy Council was filed on March 27, 1914, but was returnedon the 80th fo* notice to be given in accordance with the rule.
' Notice was given on April 1, and the application was set down forhearing on the 7th.
Held, that the application was out of time.
PJ^HE facts appear from the judgment.
Hayley, for plaintiff, applicant.
Bad?a, K.C., for defendant, respondent.
March 8, 1914. Lascelles C.J.—
This is an application by the plaintiff for conditional leave toappeal to the Privy Council from the judgment of this Court datedFebruary 26, 1914. The defendant opposes on the ground that theapplication is out of time.
Rule No. 2 of the scheduled rules to the Appeals (Privy Council)Ordinance, 1908, is as follows: —
2. Application to the Court for leave to appeal shall be made bypetition within thirty days from the date of the judgment to beappealed from, and the applicant shall give the opposite party
notice of his intended application.
' The date of the judgment of this Court, as 1 have said, is February26, 1914. The petition was .filed in the Registry on March 27, 1914,but was returned on the 80th for notice to be given in accordancewith the rale. Notice was given on April 1, and tire applicationset down for hearing on the 7th.
In these circumstances, Mr. Bawa contends that the applicationis out of time, inasmuch as the words “ notice of his intended.application " show that notice must be given before the application.A similar view of the meaning of the rule was taken in S. C. 446, 1913,and the practice at the Registry, as appears from what happenedin this case, is to insist on strict compliance with the rule.
If the matter had been res integrn, I think that there would havebeen somehing to be said for the contention that, after all, the
( HI )
object of the provision as to notice is to ensure the respondenthaving reasonable notice of the application to this Court, that .therespondent is not benefited by having notice of the filing of thepetition in the Registry, and that he as no ground of complaintso long as he has notice of the application a reasonable time before-the application comes on for healing in Court. But in view of thedecision to which I have referred, and of the practice which hasprevailed. I am reluctantly obliged to ■ refuse conditional leave toappeal.
Dr Sampayo A..1.—1 a*rree.
Application refuted.
1014.
Lascellbs
C.J.
Goudert v,Elias .