Sri Lanka Law Reports
 3 Sri LR
LEELAWATHIE AND OTHERSSUPREME COURTS.N. SILVA, C.J.
SC SP/LA132/99CA Rev. 300/99,
DC GALLE 11139/PMARCH 31,2000
Partition Law No. 21 of 1977 – Section 23 (1), 25(1) – Filing of documents -30days before trial – Is the date of trial the first date on which the case is fixedfor trial? – Additional list of documents filed well before the next date of trial -Could it be accepted ?- Civil Procedure Code – section 121-Applicability?
In terms of section 23(1) Partition Law list of documents has to be filednot less than 30 days before the date of trial.
When section 23(1) is considered with section 25(1) it is clear that thedate of trial is not necessarily the first date on which the case is fixedfor trial but would also include any date to which the trial is postponed.
As tne additional list is filed (18.12.1998) well before the next date oftrial (5.3.99) the documents could be accepted.
APPEAL from an order of the Court of Appeal.
Sirimal D. Vithanage for plaintiff-petitioner-appellant.
S.N. SILVA, CJ.This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal dated 0129.4.99 and the order of the District Court dated 5.3.99. By theorder made on 5.3.99 the learned Additional District Judge refused
Pushpa v Leelawathie and Others
the application of the plaintiff-appellant to produce certaindocuments on the basis that these documents have not beenincluded in a list filed in compliance with section 121 of the CivilProcedure Code.
We note that the applicable provision is section 23(1) of thePartition Law, in terms of which the list of documents has to be filednot less than 30 days before the date of trial. When this provisionis considered in the light of section 25(1) it is clear that the date oftrial is not necessarily the first date on which the case is fixed fortrial but would also include any date to which the trial is postponed.The documents in question have in fact been included in theadditional list filed on 18.12.1998 well before the next date of trialbeing 5.3.99. In-the circumstances we allow this appeal and setaside the order made by the Additional District Judge on 5.3.99 andremit the case for trial de novo. We make no order as to costs.
PERERA, J.I agree.
WEERASEKERA, J. – I agree.
PUSHPA v. LEELAWATHIE AND OTHERS