Ranasinghe v Tikiri Banda (Somawansa, J.)
positive rule of law to come to Court prior to the service of thedecree but after the judgment, so that the petition and affidavit filedin the instant case though filed prior to the service of the decree tothe defendant-appellant is valid in law and the learned DistrictJudge should have accepted the same and inquired into whetherthe defendant-appellant had reasonable grounds for such default,and determined the matter on the merits of the application.
In the reasons given for his order dated 22.11.1994 thelearned District Judqe states as follows: I

I cannot subscribe to the view expressed by the learnedDistrict Judge that the defendant-appellant has failed to complywith the provisions of section 86(2), for it is to be seen that a validpetition and affidavit to purge the default was before him when hemade the impugned order.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2003) 3 Sri L.R
In the case of Coomaraswamy v MariammaperWeerasuriya, J:
“It is manifest that the application to purge the default hadbeen made prior to the service of the decree. However, itwould appear that the requirement for the party to make theapplication within 14 days of the service of the decree doesnot preclude the defendant to make an application before ser-vice of the decree and for the Court to inquire into such appli- isocation after decree was served.”
For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the order of thelearned District Judge dated 22.11.1994 as well as the order dated
cannot stand and should be set aside. Accordingly Iwould allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the learnedDistrict Judge dated 22.11.1994 and 15.06.1994 and remit thecase to the appropriate District Court for the learned District Judgeto hold a fresh inquiry into the application of the defendant-appel-lant to purge the default on the merits and proceed to hear anddetermine the case. The plaintiff-respondent will pay Rs. 5000/- as 190costs of this appeal.
Appeal allowed.