010-NLR-NLR-V-36-RAMALINGAM-PILLLAI-v.-WIMALARATNE.pdf
;>2
Ramalingam Pillai v. Wimalaratne.
1934Present: Macdonell C.J. and Dalton J.
RAMALINGAM PILLAI v. WIMALARATNE.
231—D. C. Kalutara, 341.
Appeal—Failure to supply stamps for certificate of appeal—Fatal irregularity.
Failure to supply, along with the petition of appeal, stamps for thedecree of the Supreme Court and certificate in appeal is a fatal irregularity.
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kalutara
H. V. Perera, for defendant, appellants.
M. T. de S. Amerasekere, for plaintiff, respondent.
MACDONELL C.J.—Ramalingam Pillai v. Wimalaratne.
53
September 3, 1934. Macdonell C.J.—
This is a question of a certificate of appeal not having been stampedin time and whether the appeal should in consequence be struck out.The provisions of the Stamp Ordinance, No. 22 of 1909 (Vol. II., p. 946),seem to be peremptory. They say that the appellant shall deliver tothe Secretary of the District Court, together with his petition of appeal,the proper stamp for the decree or order of the Supreme Court andcertificate in appeal, which may be required for such appeal. I do notthink it is necessary to construe the words “ together with ” as meaning“ in addition to ” (see Nonai v. Appuhamy'). They are quite clear asthey stand, and, even if they are so construed', their simplest meaningwould be that there shall be simultaneously delivered with a certificateof appeal, the stamp required for same.
There are a number of cases supporting the proposition that without astamp, a certificate of appeal cannot be received. The case cited to us,Nonai v. Appuhamy (supra), was really a decision on the facts and canbe distinguished, whereas the case Sathasivan v. Cadiravel Chetty* seemsto be directly in point. There is also the Full Bench decision in DonMathes Bandar a v. Wamasuriya Patabendige Babun Appu and others*.The reasons given in that Full Bench case are short, but the decision isperfectly clear. The District Judge informed the Supreme Court in aletter that the appeal had been filed on the 25th of a month and thestamp on the certificate of appeal not furnished until the 26th, i.e., oneday afterwards, and the Court thereon made order “ upon reading theletter of the District Judge, that the appeal filed in the action by theplaintiff be and the same is hereby rejected with costs, stamps for theSupreme Court judgment and the certificate in appeal not having beensupplied at the same time ”, I take it we are bound by thatjudgment.
I may perhaps also mention the judgment delievered last May by mybrother Garvin and myself where there were two appeals and the proctorsfor the appellant had stamped them with stamps as for one appeal only,where both of us held that the petition of appeal and the accompanyingdocuments must be rejected on that ground. There it was not a questionof time, but one of the sufficiency of the stamps tendered, and possiblythat decision is a fortiori to the one now before us. I think the appealbefore us should be rejected, the respondent to have the costs of thisapplication.
Daltok J.—I agree.
Appeal rejected.
21 N. L. R. 170.
2 21 N. L. R. 93.
3 1 Matara Cases 203.