Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2007] 1 Sri LR
In this Court with the motion dated 12.05.2003, when filing thecounter affidavit the defendant had tendered documents marked as X 22019 to X 21.
X20 being an affidavit sworn by another Attomey-at-Law Ms.Nandanie Arumahannadi bears the fact that on 07.02.2003 shemoved for postponements in cases of Attomey-at-Law Saroja Mendisand this number was not included in that list of cases. The position ofthe defendant and his Attomey-at-Law Mendis also was that both didnot appear on 07.02.2003. (the date of the delivery of the judgment)
So, this affidavit (X20) too confirms nothing but the position that thedefendant's registered Attorney-at-Law Ms. Mendis had not appearedin Court on 07.02.2003. The affidavit of the defendant’s registered 230Attorney-at-Law Ms. S. Mendis also confirms the above position andall what is stated is that she was unaware of the date 07.02.2002 inthis case.
In the foregoing circumstances I am unable to conclude that thecircumstances enumerated as above by the defendant in this casecould be considered as causes not within his control from complyingwith section 754 and 755 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, thequestion with regard to whether the defendant has a good ground ofappeal has to be examined. Having examined the judgment, I amunable to assert that there is a good ground of appeal.240
For the above reasons I am inclined to dismiss the presentapplication of the defendant-petitioner and same is hereby dismissed.
In all circumstances no order is made with regard to costs.
Appeal dismissed.