095-NLR-NLR-V-62-THENUWARA-Petitioner-and-THENUWARA-Respondent.pdf
tThenuwara v. Thenuwara,
501
I960Present:Basnayake, C.J., and Sansoni, J.THEjNTJWARA, Petitioner, and THENTJW Alt A, Respondent
S. C. 376—Application for Conditional Leave to Appeal to the PrivyCouncil in S. C. 126jD. C. Colombo, 16607
Privy Council—Application for conditional leave to appeal—illusL be properlystamped.—Stamp Ordinance, Schedule A, Part II—Appeals (Privy Council)Ordinance, Schedule, Rule 2.
An application for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council which isinsufficiently stamped will not be entertained.
ypPLICATION for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with K. N. Chohsy, for 1st Respondent-Petitioner.
Colvin It. de Silva, with V. J. Mariyn, for Petitioner-Respondent.
J une 22, I960. Basxayakis, C.J.—
Objection is taken to this application for conditional leave to appealunder section 3 of the Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance on the groundthat the petition for leave has not been stamped with the correct amount
1 (1953) 55 N. Z>. P. 94.
C02
Fernando v. The Government Agent, Kandy
of stamp duty. It is admitted by learned counsel for the applicantthat the amount of duty that should have been affixed on the petitionis Rs. 318, but it bears stamps to the value of only Rs. 131. The scaleof duties according to which an application for conditional leave toappeal to the Privy Council should be stamped is in Part II of Schedule Aof the Stamp Ordinance, but in this instance the document has beenstamped according to the scale of duties in Part HI of that Schedule.My brother Weerasooriya has held in the case oi'Usoof v. NadarajahGhettiar1 that an application for conditional leave to appeal to thePrivy Council which is insufficiently stamped will not be entertained evenif the deficiency in stamp duty is subsequently made good by the applicantbut after the expiry of the period of 30 days prescribed in Rule 2 of theSchedule to the Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance. The instant casefalls within the ambit of that decision.
The objection is therefore upheld.
Sansoni, J.—I agree.
Application rejected.