( 88 )
PreaeHt: Schneider A.J. and Loos A.J.27—J>. C. QoUe, 15,764.
SATHASIYAN c. CADIBAVEL OHETTY.
A ppeaFailure to supply stamps fatal
Failure to suply stamps for judgment of the Supreme Court andfor the certificate in appeal, together with the petition of appeal,is fatal to the whole appeal.
Don Mathes Bandara v. Baiun Appu 1 followed.fJ1HE facts appear from the judgment.
Bartholomews (with him Oorloff), fcor defendant, appellant.
J. S. Jayawardene, for purchaser, respondent.
Zoyaa (with him Arulanandan), for plaintiff, respondent.
June 12, 1919. Schneider A.J.—
This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor. The respondents tothe appeal are the purchaser and the plaintiff. The petition ofappeal was filed in the lower Court, according to the journal entryin the case, on January 17, 1919, and there is an entry on the recordthat no stamps were tendered for judgment of the Supreme Courtand for the certificate in appeal. On the record there is a certificatein appeal stamped and dated February 18, 1919. There is nothingto show that stamps for the copy of the Supreme Court judgmenthave been supplied up to date. A preliminary objection wa^ takenthat the appeal should not be heard, because of the omission tosupply the stamps for the certificate and for the copy of theSupreme Court judgment, together with the petition of appeal.This objection was raised upon the provision in the Stamp Ordinance,Schedule B in Part II., head “ Miscellaneous ”: “ Provided' also,that in appeals to the Supreme Court the appellant shall deliver tothe Secretary of the District Court or Clerk of the Court of Bequests,together with his petition of appeal, the proper stamp for the decreeor order of the Supreme Court and certificate in appeal which maybe required for such appeal/*
The question, therefore, is whether the omission to supply thestamps was so fatal as to wreck the whole appeal. There is nodirect authority either in the Stamp Ordinance or in . the provisions .of the Civil Procedure Code for the proposition that the omissionto supply the stamps would entail as a consequence the dismissalof the appeal; but our attention was invited to two cases, Corneliav. TJkku,s decided in 1867, where it was held that the omission tosupply stamps for the decree or order of the Supreme Court within1 (1892) 2 Matara Cases 203.8 (1867) Bam. 2863-1868, 278.
( 94 )
' 8a0uuivanv. Oadira velOhettp
the time limited by the rules for perfecting an appeal was fatal tothe appeal. The reason given for that decision was that otherwiseinjustice would be caused to the respondent by his being kept outof his judgment. The other case was that of Don Mathea Bandura v.Babun Appu, 1 which we ascertain by a reference to the minutes of'this Court had been decided by the Full Court in 1892, where it washeld that the stamps for the decree of the Supreme Court andcertificate in appeal not having been furnished till the day after thepetition of appeal was filed was fatal to the appeal, and the appealwas on that account rejected, with costs. We are bound by thedecision of the latter case, and for the reasons given in that case wereject the appeal in this case, with costs.
Loos A.J.—I agree.
SATHASIVAN v. CADIRAVEL CHETTY