On a perusal of the proceedings dated 12.11.1996 we find thatthe above statement of the learned Additional District Judge iserroneous. The proceedings of 12.11.1996 relevant to this applicationis as follows:
Sri Lanka. Law Reports
[1999] 3 Sri L ft
It is to be noted that according to the proceedings dated 05.05.1997this matter has been raised before the learned District Judge.Accordingly, the 1st defendant pointed out that in view of the agree-ment marked "A" the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter asit has to be referred to arbitration. On that date the learned AdditionalDistrict Judge made order that the question whether this matter shouldgo before an arbitrator or not be decided on written submissionstendered by the parties and a date was given to tender writtensubmissions. On written submissions being tendered the learnedAdditional District Judge without making an order on that matter, on17.07.1997 ordered that as the matter fixed for inquiry on 05.05.1997was regarding the objections raised by the petitioner to the applicationmade by the 1st defendant-respondent to amend the answer, the 1stdefendant-respondent to tender written submissions on the same.Although the learned Additional District Judge decided on 05.05.1997to make order regarding the question of arbitration on writtensubmissions tendered by the parties without making such an orderhe directed the parties again to make written submissions regardingthe question of amendment of the answer.
In considering all the above facts and specially the arbitration clausereferred to above in the agreement marked A which is part and parcelof the plaint we are of the view that the amendment sought to bemade by the defendant is in accordance with the pleadings of thiscase. In view of the submissions made before us; the direction ofthe learned District Judge dated 05.05.1997 and the contents of Article24 of the agreement marked A' we are of the view that this amendmentis a necessary amendment "on which the right decision of the caseappears to depend". The amendment sought to be made by thedefendant is solely based on the document marked "A" which is partand parcel of the plaint. In view of the above reasons we are of theview that there are no valid reasons to interfere with the order madeby the learned Additional District Judge allowing the amended answerdated 06.10.1997. Hence, this application for revision is dismissed withRs. 2,500 as costs to be paid by the plaintiff-petitioner to thedefendant-respondent.
DE SILVA, J. – I agree.
Application dismissed.