032-SLLR-SLLR-2002-3-DASSANAYAKE-v.-SAMPATH-BANK-LTD..pdf
268
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(2002] 3 Sri LR.
DASSANAYAKE
v.SAMPATH BANK LTD.
COURT OF APPEALUDALAGAMA, J. ANDNANAYAKKARA, J.
CALA NO. 387/2000DC COLOMBO NO. 5559/SPLFEBRUARY 15. 2002
Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act, No. 4 of 1990, sections16 and 16 (1) – Property sold in execution – Delivery of possession – Can theaggrieved party seek leave to appeal?
Held:
Jurisdiction exercised by the District Court under Act, No. 4 of 1990 isin the nature of special jurisdiction created by the Act.
A right of appeal is a statutory right; unless it is expressly created andprovided by the statute it cannot be implied or inferred.
Act, No. 4 of 1990 is an enactment which has conferred special jurisdictionon the District Court and does not permit a party who is dissatisfied withan order in the course of proceedings under it, to seek relief by way ofleave to appeal.
APPLICATION for leave to appeal from an order of the District Court of Colombo.Cases referred to :
Sangarapillai v. Mayor, Municipal Council of Colombo – 32 NLR 62.
Vanderpoorten v. The Settlement Officer – 42 NLR 97.
Kanagasunderam v. Podihamine – 42 NLR 97.
Bakmeewewa, Authorised Officer of People's Bank v. Konarage Raja -(1989) 1 Sri LR 231.
Gunarathne v. Thambinayagam – (1993) 2 Sri LR 355.
Manohara de Silva for petitioner.
Chanaka de Silva with V. Gamage for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
CA
Dassanayake v. Sampath Bank Ltd. (Nanayakkara, J.)
269
February 26, 2002NANAYAKKARA, J.
An order made by the learned District Judge of Colombo in the courseof an action instituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Loansby Bank (Special Provisions) Act, No. 4 of 1990 gives rise to thisapplication for leave to appeal.
When this matter was taken up for inquiry into leave on 18. 05.2001 the following preliminary objection, which has a direct bearingon the maintainability of this application was taken by the respondentBank.
The preliminary objection taken was briefly as follows:
That the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief by way of leave
to appeal as no such right of appeal has been conferred on a
party dissatisfied with an order made under the provisions of the
Recovery of Loans by Bank (Special Provisions) Act, No. 4 of 1990.
This court has now been called upon to determine the validity ofthe preliminary objection, on the basis of the written submissionstendered and the authorities cited by the parties.
It should be observed at the outset that the written submissionstendered by the petitioner in this connection have not been helpfulin resolving the preliminary objection taken as they do not have adirect bearing on it.
The question at issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to comeby way of leave to appeal seeking redress, which he has prayed forin his petition against an order made by the District Judge undersection 16 of the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions)Act, No. 4 of 1990.
A careful analysis of the provisions of the said Act makes it evidentthat the jurisdiction exercised by the District Court under the Recoveryof Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act, No. 4 of 1990, is inthe nature of special jurisdiction created by the Act.
01
10
20
270
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 3 Sri L.R.
As far as section 16 (1) of the said Act is concerned, it provides 30for expeditious mode of recovery of the property, which has alreadybeen vested in the purchaser by an issuance of a certificate of salein terms of the provisions of the said Act.
The right of appeal is a statutory right; unless it is expresslycreated and provided by the Statute, it cannot be implied orinferred. A long line of authorities enunciates this principlegoverning situations analagous to the matter in consideration.The following are some of the important authorities which dealwith situations, which are identical to the present case:
Sangarapillai v. Mayor, Municipal Council of Colombo.™40
Vanderpooien v. The Settlement Officer.™
Kanagasunderam v. Podihamine.™
The principle enunciated in the above-mentioned cases, has alsobeen clearly upheld in the following recent authorities:
Bakmeewewa, Authorized Officer of People's Bank v. Konarage
Raja!' *
Gunaratne v. Thambinayagam and Others.
Therefore, it is manifestly clear from the reasoning adopted in thesecases that the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Actis an enactment which has conferred special jurisdiction on the District 50Court, and does not permit a party who is dissatisfied with an ordermade in the course of proceedings instituted under it, to seek reliefby way of leave to appeal.
Therefore, applying the principle set forth in the above-mentionedauthorities, I uphold the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner-respondent Bank and dismiss this application casting therespondent-petitioner in cost in a sum of Rs. 5,000.
UDALAGAMA, J. – I agree.
Application dismissed.