( 76 )
SIYADORIS APPUHAMY v. GIRIGORIS APPUHAMY.
C. R., Tangalla, 2,219.
Court of Requests—Ordinance. No. 12 of 1S95, s. 13—Leave of the Commissionerto appeal.
The policy of the Legislature, in framing section 13 of the OrdinanceNo. 12 of 1895, is to make the decisions of a Commissioner on questionsof fact final. It is only when he has any doubt as to the justice of hisdecision or, if not feeling a doubt himself, yet thought that otherpersons might reasonably take a different view of the case, that heshould grant leave to appeal.
N this action for money lent the Commissioner gave judgmentfor plaintiS on the 24th November, 1899. The defendant
desiring to appeal moved the Court under section 13 of theOrdinance No. 12 of 1895 for leave to appeal. The Commissionerordered as follows: —
“ I grant leave, but I trust that my doing so may not be taken“ to show that I have any doubt as to the justice of the decision
( 77 )
“ 1 have come to. I do so in deference to what I believe to he the“ wishes of the Supreme Court in such matters.”
Defendant filed his appeal.
Thiru-Ndvuk-Ara.su, for appellant.
Van Langenberg, for respondent.
Bonskb, C.J., after considering the case on the merits dismissedthe appeal, and made the following remarks as to the principleswhich should guide the Comissioners in granting leave toappeal: —
There is one word I should like to add as to the reason allegedby the Commissioner for giving leave to appeal in this case. Hesays: ” I grant it, but trust that my doing so may not be taken“ to show that I have any doubt as to the decision I have come to.” I do so in deference to what I believe to be the wishes of the“ Supreme Court in such matters.” Where the Commissioner gothis information as to the wishes of the Supreme Court, I donot know. As far as I am personally concerned, his action is notin accordance with my wishes. The policy of the Legislaturewas to make the decisions of Commissioners on questions of factin actions like the present final, for it provided that in such casesthere should be no appeal, except upon matters of law, or uponthe admission or rejection of evidence, or with the leave of theCommissioner. That did not authorize the Commissioner to giveleave as a matter of course, which I gather is the practice of thisCommissioner. It meant that if the Commissioner felt any doubtas to the justice of his decision, or, if not feeling a doubt himself,yet thought that other persons might reasonably take a differentview of the case, then, in such a case, he should grant leave. Butit was never intended that a Commissioner who, as in the presentcase, felt assured in his own mind that his judgment was right,should put the successful party to the risk and expense of appealor that he should allow the unsuccessful party to throw away hismoney on a hopeless appeal.
SIYADORIS APPUHAMY v. GIRIGORIS APPUHAMY