scSanoon v Rahuman
SARATH SILVA, C.J.
DR. SHIRANI BANDARANAYAKE, J.
DC COLOMBO 7318/RE.
FEBRUARY 9, 2000
Supreme Court Rules -25 (1)- Tendering of notice within prescribed period –
Non compliance – Leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal –
Granted by Court of Appeal – Mandatory?
Rule 25(1) requires the appellant to lodge in the Registry of the SupremeCourt, within 14 days of grant of leave by the Court of Appeal a notice ofappeal in the prescribed form together with such number of copies asrequired for service on the respondents and himself and three additionalcopies.
The Rule is mandatory since time sequence provided for thesubsequent steps to be taken in bringing up the appeal for hearingare based on due compliance with the requirements of Rules 25 (1).
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court with leave being granted by the
Court of Appeal – on a preliminary objection taken.
Hemasiri Withanachchi for appellant.
V. Thevasenadhipathy for respondent.
February 9, 2000
S. N. SILVA, C. J.
Counsel for the defendant-respondent-respondent has raised apreliminary objection to this appeal being considered by Court on the
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 3 Sri L.R
basis that there has been a non-compliance with Rule 25(1) of theSupreme Court Rules of 1990.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal was entered on 06.01.1998 andthat Court granted leave to appeal from the judgment on the motion ofthe plaintiff-appellant-appellant on 05.02.1998. In such a situation, Rule25(1) requires the appellant to lodge in the Registry of the SupremeCourt within fourteen days of the grant of leave, notice of appeal in theprescribed form together with such number of copies as required forservice on the respondents and himself and three additional copies, andalso tender the required number of stamped addressed envelopes forservice on the respondents by registered post. In terms of the said Rulenotices should have been tendered to the registry of the Supreme Courton or before 19.02.1998. It is conceded by the appellant that he hasfailed to tender notice within the said period. Notices have beentendered only on 24.02.1998.
The plaintiff-appellant has sought to excuse the delay in tenderingnotices by an affidavit dated 24.02.1998 where he has stated that on thenight of 06.02.1998 he was affected with a severe bout of wheezingwhich required immediate medical attention, and in support of thatposition he has tendered two certificates X1 & X2. The certificates do notappear to have been issued by a doctor being a medical practitionerrecognised by law. It is also noted the second certificate dated
is addressed to the Court itself. It is manifest that thesecertificates have been procured purely for the purpose of being filed inCourt. In the circumstances, the excuse sought to be given by theplaintiff-appellant for his default does not bear scrutiny. In any event weare of the view that the Rule is mandatory since the time sequenceprovided for the subsequent steps to be taken in bringing up the appealfor hearing are based on a due compliance with the requirements ofRule 25(1) referred above. Hence we have to uphold the preliminaryobjection raised by the defendant-respondent and make order rejectingthe notice of appeal that had been tendered out of time. The appeal isaccordingly dismissed. No costs.
DR. SHIRANI BANDARANAYAKE, J.-I agree.
ISMAIL, J.-I agree.