However the said Nandarama, the original plaintiff, gave evidencecontrary to the aforesaid affidavit (F3). At the inquiry he said he disrobed
2S6Sri Lanka Law Reports(2005) 1 Sri L R.
on 28.10.1999. But according to his own affidavit (marked F3) he hadgiven up robes on 01.10.1998. ln“F3?’he had in unequivocal terms affirmedto the fact that he disrobed on 01.10.1998. He had voluntarily given uprobes with the intention of leaving the priesthood permanently. In thesecircumstances having given up robes with the intention of leaving the priest-hood, and declaring and affirming an affidavit to that effect, he cannotthereafter claim to be a bhikku by putting on the robes again. He ought togo through the procedure of robing and higher ordination afresh to becomea bhikku again.
The said Assaji Thero sought to be substituted in place of the origi-nal plaintiff the said Nandarama Thero on the ground that he is a pupil ofthe said Nandarama Thero by presenting him for higher ordination. As theoriginal plaintiff the said Nandarama Thero had disrobed on 01.10.1998.the said Assaji Thero cannot claim that he is a pupil of the said NandaramaThero by higher ordination.
In these circumstances I am of the view that the learned DistrictJudge erred in holding that the said Nandarama Thero disrobed tempo-rarily only to obtain a photograph as a layman for the national identitycard, but thereafter he continued as a bhikku until the date of the higherordination of the said Assaji Thero.
For these reasons I grant leave to appeal. The order of the learnedDistrict Judge dated 24.07.2003 is set aside and the appeal is allowedwith costs. It appears to me that none of the defendants have made anyapplication to substitute all or one of them in place of the original plaintiffwho is now disrobed. Accordingly, if an appliaction is made by a party, thelearned Judge can after holding an inquiry according to law, make an orderwith regard to the substitution in place of the original plaintiff.
Appeal allowed; order set aside.