S. ADIRIS FERNANDO, Appellant and S. ROSALIN and another, Respondents

132-NLR-NLR-V-74-S.-ADIRIS-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-S.-ROSALIN-and-another-Respondents.pdf


SIRIMAXE, J.—Fernando v. Itosalin
063
1971Present: Sirimane, J., and Samerawickramo, J.
S. ADIRIS FERNANDO, Appellant and S. ROSALIN andanother, Respondents
S.C. 1S3/69 Inly—D.O. Badulla, SOIfP. .
Conciliation Boards Ordinance—Applicability to a partition action—■Certificate ojConciliation Board—Objection es to its absence taken loo late—Effect.
Even assuming that a certificate from tho Conciliation Board is necessaryin a partition action, it would be too Into to raiso an objection as to tho abscncoof such certificate if interlocutory decreo bas been already entered.
_/pPEAL from an order of tho District Court, Badulla.
Nimal Senanayake, with Bala Natlarajah and Miss S. 31. Scnaralne,for tho plaintiff-appellant.
T. B. Dissaiuiyuke. for tho 1st defendant-respondent.
2nd defendant-respondent absent and unrepresented.
September 10, 1971. Sikimaxe, J.—
This is a partition action in which the Interlocutory Decree has beenentered. No objection had been taken before the Decree was enteredthat tho parties should first obtain a certificate from the ConciliationBoard.
Counsol for tho 1st Defendant-respondent refers us to tho judgment inFernando v. Fernando3
It is too late now to raiso this objection, oven assuming for the purposesof argument only that such a certificate is necessary in a partitionaction.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Samerawickra^ie, J.—I agreo.
Appeal dismissed.
(1971) SO O. L. TK. 14; 74 N. L. B. 57.