040-NLR-NLR-V-62-SIDORIS-and-others-Appellants-and-GUNERIS-Respondent.pdf
Sidoris v. Ouneris
167
I960Present : Basnayake, C.J., and Sansoni, J.SIB ORIS and others, Appellants, and GUNERIS, RespondentS. C. 95 {with S. C. 108, 236 and 5)—D. C. Avissawella, 7800
Appeal—Application for typewritten copies—Provisions relating thereto—Complianceimperative—Civil Appellate Rules, 1938, Rules 2 (1), 4 (a).
"Where, in an appeal, the application for typewritten copies of the proceedingsis not made in conformity with tho requirements of Rule 2 (1) of the CivilAppellate Rules, 1938, the appeal is liable to be rejected in accordance with thoprovisions of Rule 4 (a).
Appeals from a judgment of the Bistrict Court, Avissawella.
JV E. Weerasooria, Q.O., with M. G. Abeyewardene and A – A. de Silva,for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Befendants-Appellants in S. C. 95, for 1st, 2nd and3rd Befendants-Respondents in S. C. 108, for 1st Befendant-Appellantin S. C. 236, for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Befendants-Respondents and for Plain-tiff-Petitioner in S. C. 5.
M. T. M. Sivardeen, for Plaintiff-Respondent in S. C. 95, for Plaintiff-Appellant in S. C. 108, for Plaintiff-Respondent in S. C. 236 and forPlaintiff-Appellant in S. C. 5.
{1937) 9 C. L. W. 82 at 83.a {1939) 14 C. L. W. 112.
3 See 61 N. L. R. 433—Ed.
1
168
BASNAYAKE, C.J.—Sidoria v. Quneria-
May 12, 1960. Basnayake, C.J.—
The respondent in appeal No. 95 takes the preliminary objection thatthe application for typewritten copies has not been made in conformitywith Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Appellate Rules, 1938, and the respondents inappeals Nos. 108 and 5 take the same objection. It is a fact that theappellants in these appeals have not complied with the requirements ofRule 2 (I) of the Civil Appellate Rules, 1938. Rule 4 (<z) declares thatwhere the appellant fails to make application for typewritten copies inaccordance with the requirements of Rule 2(1) the appeal shall be deemedto have abated. We therefore reject appeals Nos. 95, 108 and 5.
Mr. Weerasooria who appears for the appellant in appeal No. 236states that, if appeal No. 95 fails, the appeal No. 236 must necessarilyfail as it is an appeal from an order refusing the stay of execution of awrit of possession. That appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sansoni, J.—I agree.
Appeals rejected.