074-NLR-NLR-V-59-H.-R.-DISSANAYAKE-Petitioner-and-S.-S.-KULATILLEKE-District-Judge-Tangalle-.pdf
316
Dissanayake v. KvJatUleUe
1956' Present: Basnayake, A.C.J., and Weerasooriya, J.
B. DISSAjSTAYAKE, Petitioner, and S. S. KULATILLEKE(District Judge, Tangalle) and others, Respondents
S. G. 365—Application for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Ordermade in revision by the District Court of Tangalle in
R.G. Raima Case No. 166
Rural Court—-Appeal and Revision—Scope oj the powers of a District Judge—Remedy when District Judge exceeds his jurisdiction—Certiorari—Rural CourtsOrdinance- No. 12 of 1945, s. 41 (G).
When a District Judgo acts in tho oxorciso of tho powers of revision vestedin him by section 41 (G) of tho Rural Courts Ordinanco, tho parties to tho■ action havo no right to appear and bo heard. Tiio District Judgo is not entitled,howovor, to nmko uso of any material other than that which appears in thorecord of tho Rural Court proceedings.’.
Certiorari lies where tho District Judgo exceeds his jurisdiction, because,in such a caso, an error of law appears on tho faco of tho record.
BASXAYAKJE," C.J.—Dissanayake v. Kulalillcke
311
.Application for a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order mad©in revision by the District Court, Tangalie, in respect of a Rural CourtCase.''
II. W. Jayewardene, Q.G., with G. T. Samarawickreme and P. Rana-singJie, in support.
C. V. Ranawake, with D. Vitanage, for Respondents.
V. S. A. Pullenayegum, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General (Onnotice).
■Cur. adv. vult.
April 30, 1956. Basnayake, C.J.—
This is an application for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarito quash the order made in Rural Court Case No. 166 by the DistrictJudge of Tangalie acting in the exercise of the powers of revision vestedin him by section 41 (6) of the Rural Courts Ordinance No. 12 of 1945.
The petitioner was the plaintiff in the above mentioned case. Hesought to recover a sum of Rs. 50 from the second respondent, being thevalue of the paraveni share of the produce of the land called BarawaIvumbukka at Bogammuwa for the }rear 1953. He gave evidencehimself and called witnesses on his behalf, including the person whoclaimed to be the owner of the land, to establish his claim. • Thedefendant did not take any part in the proceedings. When the claimwas explained to him he said—
“ I am not liable. Lands enjoyed by muttum mutha are alsoenjoyed by us.”
At the end of the plaintiff’s case he was called upon by the Presidentto present his defence. He got into the witness box and on oath said—
“ I am not willing to state mj' defence in this Court
On the evidence before him the President of the Rural Court gavejudgment in favour of the plaintiff on Sth September, 1953. Thedefendant did not appeal. But on 8th December, 1953, he petitionedthe District Judge, who acting in revision under section 41 (6) of theRural Courts Ordinance 12 of 1945 set aside the order of-the President.
The learned District Judge has proceeded on the ground that the claimof the plaintiff was in fact one’for declaration of title and that the RuralCourt had no jurisdiction to entertain the action. It is urged on behalfof the petitioner that the order is bad in law on the ground that therule of audi alteram partem has not been observed by the District Judgeand that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of presenting hiscase before the adverse order was made. .•
312
B ASXAYAKE, G.J.—JDissanayahe v. Kvlatifleke
It is specially enacted by section 41 (4) of the Rural Courts Ordinancethat—•■ • .•.
“ h>o party to an appeal shall be entitled or be permitted to appear,
either by himself or by agent or representative, before a District. Judge on any appeal under this section. ”
If in an appeal the parties to an action in the Rural Court have noright to appear and be heard before the District Judge, it cannot bosaid that when the District Judge is acting in revision the parties canhave greater rights. We are therefore unable to uphold the submissionthat the' failure of the District Judge to afford the petitioner anopportunity of being heard vitiates his order.
The other grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner are that the orderis on the face of it ■wrong in law, and that the District Judge has actedin excess of his jurisdiction.
An examination of his order reveals that in arriving at his decisionthe learned District Judge appears to have travelled outside the recordof the case and made use of material in the defendant’s petition to him.
Sub-section (C) of section 41 of the Rural Courts Ordinance givesthe District Judge power to examine the record of any case and on thematerial in the record satisfy himself as to the propriety of the proceed-ings or of any order, decision or sentence made or passed thereon bythe Rural Court. In the instant case by not confining himself to thematerial in the xecord the learned District Judge has exercised a powernot granted him by the section and thereby exceeded his jurisdiction.
It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to discuss the othergrounds relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is sufficientto say that Certiorari lies in a case where an error of law appears on theface of the record. That principle has been recently affirmed in thecase of Ji. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal l.
We accordingly quash the order of the District Judge setting asidethe judgment of the Rural Court. The petitioner is entitled to thecosts of this application.
Weerasooiuya, J.—I agree.
Order quashed.
(1052) 1 All E.H. 122.