082-NLR-NLR-V-69-H.-A.-M.-CASSIM-Petitioner-and-GOVERNMENT-AGENT-BATTICALOA-Respondent.pdf
SANS ONI, C.J.—Cassim v. Government Agent, Batticaloa
403
1966
Present : Sansoni, C.J.
H. A. M. CASSIM, Petitioner, and GOVERNMENT AGENT,BATTICALOA, Respondent
■S'. C. 323/66—-Application in Revision in M. C. Batticaloa, 6171
Revision—Requirement that application should be made j/romptly.
An application in revision must be made promptly if it is to be entertained bythe Supreme Court. There must be finality in litigation, even if incorrectorders have to go unreversed.
Application to revise an order made by the Magistrate’s Court,Batticaloa.
P. Nagendran,-for the Petitioner.
B. T. Premaratne, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Respondent.
October 23, 1966. Sansoni, C.J.—
This is an application in revision filed on 29th July, 1966 to revise theorder made by the Magistrate on the 20th April, 1964. Applications ofthis nature must be made promptly if they are to be entertained by thisCourt. It must fail for that reason alone.
404
The Attorney-General v. Abdeen
The reason why the application has been made at all is set out in thepetition. It is because on the 21st October, 1965 the Privy Councildelivered a judgment which showed that the correctness of the Magis-trate’s order of 20th April, 1964 could be attacked. But there must befinality in litigation, even if incorrect orders have to go unreversed.
Counsel for the petitioner says that money is still being paid andrecovered under the order of 20th April, 1964. That, of course, isthe necessary consequence of the order. So long as the order stands,and it cannot be possibly set aside merely because it was subsequentlydiscovered to be erroneous, payments which are due under it mustcontinue to be mode. For these reasons the application is dismissed.
Application dismissed.