Tilleketoardene v. Obiyesekere
Present : Drieberg J.
TILLEKEWAEDENE v. OBEYESEKERE.
In the Matter of the Avissawella Election Petition.
Election petition—Furnishing ofparticulars—Failure togivedetails—Extension
of time—Discretion of Court.
Where anelection petitioncontained charges relating to payments
and contracts for conveyance of voters, the respondent is entitled to haveparticulars as to' the persons to whom and by whom each payment andcontract was made and thetime, date, and placeofeach contractand
Where particulars are not furnished within time the Court may, oncause shown, grant an extension of time.
HIS was an election petition in which the respondent moved to havefurther particulars of the charges stated in the petition on the
ground that the particulars already furnished were inadequate.
B. P. de Silva (with him E.B. Wickramanayake),forpetitioner.
R. L. Pereira, K.C. (with him H.‘ V. Perera -andS.Senevirdtne),for
> L. K. 3 Q. B. 860.
DRlliSBEBG J'.-^-Tillekewafdene v. Obeyesekere
September 22, 1931. Drieberg J.—
This is an application by the respondent that the petition be dismissedon the ground that The petitioner has not fully complied with the ordermade that he should furnish certain particulars of the charges laid inthe petition.
Tlie respondent desired to know in connection with the charge of pay-ments and contracts for conveyance of voters, by whom and to whomsuch payments had been made and between whom the contracts forpayment were made.
The petitioner has furnished the particulars on this point in tabulatedform. He groups on one side all those persons to whom payments weremade, or with whom contracts for conveyance were made; and on .theother side he- sets out those who made payments or who. gave contractfor conveyance.
Mr. R. L. Pereira, for the respondent; complains that this is inadequateas it is essential for his purpose to know in each case of payment who theparties to it were, and similarly in the case of each contract for conveyancewho the parties to the contract were.
In my opinion this is a reasonable claim and one which is very necessaryfor the purposes of the respondent’s case.
Mr. B. F. de Silva, for the petitioner, says that the interrogatory whsnot understood in the sense in which it has been now explained by therespondent, and that for that reason they did not furnish the particularswhich were required.
I accept this explanation, and Mr. de Silva, for the petitioner, agrees tofurnish this information.
The respondent also now asks that as regards each* payment and con-,tract for conveyance he should be furnished with information regard-ing the date, time, and place of each such contract or payment, theamount of each payment, and the amount agreed upon for contracts forconveyance. This information was not sought in the interrogatories, andthe petitioner is, of course, not to be blamed for making no reference tothese points in his answers, but the request of the respondent is a Reason-able one, and I do not think his case should be prejudiced by his omittingto ask for this information in his original interrogatories.
The petitioner will supply these further particulars, together with thosewhich I have first referred to, namely, indentifying the parties to eachpayment and contract, on the 22nd instant.
Mr. Pereira, for the respondent, moves that tiie petition be dismissedon the ground that as it includes, as he says, more than three charges,the security of Rs. 5,000 is inadequate. I reserve my order on thispoint.
TILLEKEWARDENE v. OBEYSEKERE