might also say that except for a mere statement that the 90members of the Kurunegala bar are refusing to appear for her theplaintiff-petitioner has not mentioned the name of a single attorney-at-law who refused to appear on her behalf after Mr. W. F.B.Fernando revoked his proxy.
Manatunga v. Amarasinghe
(Somawansa. J.)
He submits that the very unusual payment of Rs. 1000/- in theabsence of the petitioner amounts to suspicion. As the plaintiff-petitioner was absent on 11.06.2002 who had paid the said sum ofRs. 1000/- to the defendant-respondent is not clear. Be that as itmay, the plaintiff-petitioner admits that she was absent on that dayand there being no application for a postponement the learned 110District Judge has correctly acted in terms of section 87(1) of theCivil Procedure Code in dismissing the plaintiff-petitioner’s action.
The learned District Judge cannot be faulted for dismissing theaction and no. suspicion can be attached to the order of the learnedDistrict Judge.
Section 46 of the Judicature Act in terms of which thisapplication is made reads as follows:
46 (1)' “Whenever it appears to the Court of Appeal –
that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in any particular
court or place; or120
that some questions of law of unusual difficulties are likely toarise; or
that a view of the place in or near which any offence isalleged to have been committed may be required for the
■. satisfactory inquiry into or trial of the same; or
that it is so expedient on any other ground,
the court may order upon such terms as to the payment of costsor otherwise as the said court thinks fit, for the transfer of any

Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner also refers, to journal entry(02) dated 11.06.2002 which reads as follows:
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2004] 3 Sri L.R
action, prosecution, proceeding or matter pending before anycourt to any other court and accordingly in every such case, the 130court to which any such action, prosecution, proceeding ormatter is so transferred shall, notwithstanding anything to thecontrary in this or any other law, take cognizance of and havethe power and jurisdiction to hear, try and determine suchaction, prosecution, proceeding or matter, as fully and effectuallyto all intents and purposes as if such court had an original powerand jurisdiction.”
The grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner appear to be that in theinstant action filed by her a fair and impartial trial cannot be had inthe District Court of Kurunegala. However reasons given by the 140plaintiff-petitioner in this respect I should say, do not warrant or areinsufficient to arrive at such a conclusion. Hence I am unable to findany justifiable or valid reason as to why this Court should act interms of the said section 46 of the Judicature Act.
In making an order under section 46 of the Judicature Act onemust also keep in mind the hardship if any the respondent wouldhave to face. In the instant application the plaintiff-petitioner isseeking a transfer of an action instituted in the District Court ofKurunegala to the District Court of Colombo. As submitted bycounsel for the defendant-respondent if this application is allowed 150the defendant-respondent too would have to incur heavy costs fortravelling and for retaining counsel from Colombo.
i might also say that even if this application is not granted theplaintiff-petitioner is not without remedy for if no Attorney-at-Lawfrom the Kurunegala bar would appear for her she could still get theservices of an Attorney-at-Law from an outside bar, even if such anendeavour turns out to be costly. For it is she who had instituted theinstant action seeking certain reliefs.
For the above reasons, I see no merit in the plaintiff-petitioner’sapplication and the same has to fail. Accordingly I dismiss the 160plaintiff-petitioner’s application with costs fixed at Rs. 2500/=.
EKANAYAKE, J. – I agree.
Application dismissed.