KEUNBMAN J.—de Fonseka and The Chartered Bank.
4944Present: Keuneman J.DE FONSEKA, Appellant, and THE CHARTEREDBANK et al., Respondents.
64—D. C. Colombo, 54,335.
Privy Council appeal—Application for extension of time for filing list ofdocuments for service on respondent—PrivyCouncil Appeals (Orders),
rules 10 and 18.
Where apartof the recordcontaining documentsneeded for the
preparation of the list of documents required to be served on the re-spondent under Rule 10 of the Privy Council Appeals (Orders) wasmissing from theSupreme CourtRegistry during theperiod prescribed
Held, that an application for extension of time should be grantedunder rule 18.
HIS was an application for extension of time for filing list of docu-ments to be copied for transmission to the Privy Council.
A. R. H. Canekeratne, K.G. (with him G. P. J. Kurukulasuriya andDodwell Ghinwwardana), for the appellant.
H. V. Perera, K.G. (with him JM.' K. Choksy), for the respondents.
June 12, 1944. Keuneman J.—
In this casefinal leave to appealto the Privy Councilwas granted on
May 3, 1944.Leaveto appeal wasgranted in only one ofseveral matters
which have been decided by the Supreme Court. These matters appear
KEtTNEMAN J.—de Fonsek/i and The Chartered Bank.
to have had some relation to each other. The Supreme Court onlyallowed the right to appeal in respect of Appeal No. 64 and pointed outthat no leave was asked for in respect of two appeals and that leave was-not granted in respect of another appeal.
' In connection with these various appeals in the same case a large-number of documents had been put in—in fact there appear to havebeen four volumes of documents themselves.
Under rule 10 of the Privy Council Appeals (Orders) made by theSupreme Court the appellant had to serve the respondents with a list ofall the documents he considered necessary within ten days after obtainingfinal leave to appeal. On the facts explained to me, up to the 13thMay when the ten days expired, the appellant and his legal representativehad been busy preparing this list of documents from copies of documentswhich they had themselves. On May 13th the Supreme Court Registrywas inspected, and It was discovered that Volume 4 of the documents-was not available there. I think it must be acknowledged that someof the documents which appear to be needed in this case are to be foundin Volume 4. Inquiries were made in the District Court thereafter on May15 and at first the record was not found there. Eventually after visitsboth to the District Court and the Supreme Court Registry on May 19the District Court found the record and sent it on to the Supreme CourtRegistry. On that day verification of the documents needed wenton and eventually by about May 24 copies in sufficient numbers wereavailable for 27 respondents and were sent to various parties. Obviouslythis was done after the ten days had expired.
It is open to the Court under the Privy Council Appeals (Orders) to-extend the time under section 38 for good cause, notwithstanding thatthe time had already expired. I think the absence of Volume 4 fromthe Supreme Court Registry should be regarded as good cause. It hasbeen suggested that there was not sufficient diligence between May 3-and 13 but I cannot say that I am myself satisfied that there had beennone, and had the Supreme Court Registry obtained Volume 4 of thedocuments, it is possible at any rate that they might have been verified!and notice served on that very day. However, it is a vital fact which isnot denied that this important volume was certainly absent till aboutMay 19 which was after the time had expired. Certainly the appellantwould have been well advised to come earlier to this Court and applied!for an extension of time but I do not think I ought to refuse him theenlargement of time merely upon this ground.
In all the circumstances, I allow an extension of time for servingthe respondent with a list of documents which are necessary for thiscase up to one week horn today.
In all the circumstances, I make r.o order of costs with regard to thisapplication.
I may add that no further extension of time will be allowed beyond,this one week-
DE FONSEKA, Appellant, and THE CHARTERED BANK et al., Respondents