Kadramer v. Cassini
Present : Nagalingam A.C.J.R.B. KLADRAMER, Applicant, and M. L. M. CASSIM,
Election Petition 7, Batticaloa—Application by tbe Agent for the1Respondent to draw tbe sum of Rs. 5,000 deposited as security.
Election Petition—Security for respondent's costs—Proper time for withdrawing-it—Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act, No. 19 of 1948, s. 82 (c).
Neither party to an election petition is entitled to draw during the appealableperiod, or during the pendency of an appeal, the money deposited by the peti-tioner as security for the respondent’s costs.
-^^-PPL/ICATIQN by the respondent to draw the sum of Rs. 5,000deposited as security in Election Petition 7, Batticaloa.•
S. Vanigasooriyar, for the respondent-petitioner.
H. C. de Silva, with G. T. Samar awickreme, for tbe petitioner-respondent.
JSTAGAX.INGAM A.C.J.—Kadramer v. Cassim
August 26, 1953. Naqaltnqam A.C.J.—
This is an application by the respondent for an order of payment in hisfavour for the sum of Its. 5,000 deposited by the petitioner as securityfor the respondent’s costs. The petition itself was dismissed, the re-spondent’s costs having been fixed at Us. 20,000. The petition wasdismissed by the Election Judge on the 17th of July, the last appealable•date being the 16th of August, but in the meantime, namely, on the 30thof July, the respondent made this application. For one thing, I think it is<the usual practice to wait till the expiry of the appealable period before an■order of payment is allowed in circumstances such as these and that isbased upon sound principle. Under the Parliamentary Elections (Amend-ment) Act, No. 19 of 1948, no report of the Election Judge can be trans-mitted to the Governor-General until the expiry of the period providedfor appeal—vide Section 82 (c). So the Legislature recognizes the fact thatno finality can be said to attach to the decision of the Election Judge tilltthe appealable period is over and no appeal has been filed or where an•appeal has been filed till the decision of the matter in appeal. If thisprinciple be once accepted, it must extend to an application by one of theparties to withdraw the money deposited as security whether he be peti-tioner or respondent, and I think it is a principle which has been actedupon in this Court that no order of payment is allowed before the expiry-of the period of appeal and, where an appeal has been filed, I think it isjust and proper and every principle of natural justice demands that the•order should await the decision in appeal.
I therefore refuse the present application. As this is the first case ofits kind, I make no order as to costs.