( 316 )
Present: Fisher C.J. and Drieberg J.
DAVID & CO. v. ALBERT SILVA.
94—D. C. Colombo, 30,972.
Sequestration before judgment—Affidavit—Statement of facts—Grounds-of belief—Ctvil Procedure Code, s. 658.
An application for a mandate of sequestration under section 653*of the Civil Procedure Code must be supported by an affidavitgiviDg a statement of facts and grounds of belief.
^ PPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Colombo.
H. V. Perera, for defendant, appellant.
Keuneman, for plaintiff, respondent.
August 1, 1929.Fisher C.J.—
The only point for our decision is whether this mandate wasrightly issued. Such mandates are issued under section 653 of theCivil Procedure Code. In my opinion the provisions of thatsection must be strictly complied with inasmuch as the sectiondeals with very special procedure invoked at the outset of theaction before the merits of the action or the legal rights of theparties have been dealt with on the basis of fraudulent conducton .the part of a defendant, involving interference with the pro-prietary rights of a defendant. Special procedure, such as this,can only be invoked if the provirions of section 653 are compliedwith. The affidavit in this case- merely says that the plaintiff4< has good reason to believe ” certain things. There is no statementof any facts in the affidavit as required by section 653 of the CiviLProcedure Code, and moreover, being an affidavit based on belief,section 181 is also applicable and must be complied with. Thatsection requires reasonable grounds for the belief to be set forthin the affidavit. The affidavit in this case did not comply withsection 181 in this respect and there was therefore no proper affidavitbefore the Judge. It is impossible .to give effect to the contentionthat the insufficiency of the material on which this mandate was.granted can be made good, if it is shown that the state of things,in fact existing at the time the application was made, had it beenbrought to the notice of the Judge would have justified him inacting as he did. In my opinion there is no proper material uponwhich a mandate could be issued and it must therefore be dissolvedand the appeal must be allowed, with costs in both Courts.
Drieberq J.—I agree.
DAVID & CO. v. ALBERT SILVA