Ekamayake v. Ranaweera
1959Present: Basnayake, C.J., and Pnlle, J.EKANAYAiCE, Appellant, and RANAWEERA et al., Respondents
8. G. 307—D. G. Matara, 371ft
Stamps—Amendment of pleadings—Rate of duty payable thereafter—Appeal—Stampsfor Supreme Court decree—Amount of duty payable.
When the value of the subject matter of an action is increased by an amend-ment of the pleadings, all proceedings thereafter should be stamped at therate of duty payable on the increased value. Accordingly, if the proper amountof duty for the Supreme Court decree is not tendered by the appellant togetherwith the petition of appeal, the appeal would be rejected. 1
1 (1917) 2 K. 3. 664.
BASlfAYAKE, C-J.—Ekanayake v. Rornavieera
A 'l APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Matara.
H. Wanigatunga, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
No appearance for Defendants-Bespondents.
October 23, 1959. Basnayaks, C.J.—
In this case the amount of the relief claimed was increased by an amendement of the plaint, but despite that the proceedings continued to bestamped on the value stated in the plaint before the amendment.
When the value of the subject matter of an action is increased by anamendment of the pleadings, all proceedings thereafter should be stampedat the rate of duty payable on the increased value.
As the proper amount of duty for the Supreme Court decree has notbeen tendered by the appellant together -with the petition of appeal,the appeal is rejected. ^Failure to do so is fatal to the reception of anappeal (Attorney-General v. Karimarahne et al.1)
PuTjLE, J.—I agree.