Case Summary: SC/APPEAL/1/2025

1. Parties Involved

• Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellant: Niyakulage Dilruk Sanjeewa Fernando
• Defendant-Respondents-Respondents:
  • Diyagama Vidanelage Somawathie Perera (Deceased, substituted by Meddakandage Anilka Rohini Perera)
  • Meddakandage Anilka Rohini Perera
• Counsel Representation:
  • Neomal Senathilleke with Vinura Jayawardena for the Appellant
  • Yuwin Matugama with Gihini Yapa for the Respondents

2. Facts of the Case

The appeal originates from a decision by the District Court of Panadura dated 29.11.2021, which rejected the entire list of witnesses and documents filed by the plaintiff. The basis for rejection was that the plaintiff’s list was filed out of time, violating Section 121(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court of Civil Appeal of Kalutara affirmed this decision on 28.04.2023.

Key factual background:

• The defendant filed their list of witnesses and documents four months before the first date of trial.
• The plaintiff failed to file any such list before the case was first fixed for trial.
• The plaintiff only submitted their list on 14.10.2021, which was 14 days before the second trial date (28.10.2021), violating the 15-day requirement under Section 121(2).
• When the plaintiff attempted to mark deed No. 10421 (a key title document), the defendant objected, and the District Court rejected the entire list.
• The rejection of the entire list meant the plaintiff was only permitted to give oral testimony, without presenting supporting documentary evidence.

3. Legal Issues

The primary legal question was whether the District Court and the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in rejecting the entire list of witnesses and documents based on late filing.

Sub-issues:

1. Interpretation of “fifteen days before the date fixed for trial” under Section 121(2) – whether this refers to the first trial date or any date the trial actually begins.
2. Whether the entire list could be rejected based on an objection to a single document.
3. The scope of judicial discretion in allowing unlisted witnesses or documents under Section 175 of the Civil Procedure Code.
4. Impact of procedural technicalities on justice – should procedural rules override substantive rights?
5. Changes introduced by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, No. 29 of 2023 and their relevance to pending cases.

4. Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, setting aside the previous rulings and allowing the deed to be marked in evidence.

Key Findings:

1. Rejection of the Entire List Was Unwarranted:

   • The District Court should have ruled on each document and witness separately instead of rejecting the entire list.
   • Previous case law (e.g., Silva v. Silva, Rogers Agencies (Pvt) Ltd v. People’s Merchant Bank Ltd) confirms that objections to one document do not justify rejecting an entire list.

2. Late Filing of the List Did Not Preclude Admission of Documents:

   • While Section 121(2) sets a 15-day deadline, Section 175 allows courts to exercise discretion to admit unlisted or late-filed evidence in the interest of justice.
   • In this case, deed No. 10421 was pleaded in the plaint, and the defendant had prior notice of it, so there was no element of surprise.

3. Court’s Duty to Prioritize the Search for Truth Over Procedural Technicalities:

   • The objective of civil litigation is to ensure substantive justice, not merely to enforce procedural compliance.
   • The ruling emphasized that courts should not use procedural rules as a barrier to truth, especially when no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.

4. Impact of Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, No. 29 of 2023:

   • Section 121(2) has been repealed and replaced with pre-trial disclosure requirements under Section 79B.
   • The new provisions require filing of lists before pre-trial conferences instead of trial dates.
   • However, transitional provisions apply, meaning that cases initiated under the previous law must still be judged based on those rules.

5. Discretion Under Section 175 Remains Available:

   • Even under the amended law, Section 175 still provides courts with the power to allow additional witnesses and documents if special circumstances justify it.
   • The court highlighted multiple precedents (Walker & Sons Co. Ltd. v. Masood, Arpico Finance Co. Ltd. v. Perera) where unlisted documents were allowed if the opposing party was not prejudiced.

Final Order:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
• The District Court’s and High Court’s decisions were set aside.
• The District Judge was directed to allow the deed to be marked and proceed with the trial.
• No costs were awarded.

5. Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and judicial discretion in Sri Lankan civil litigation. The ruling clarifies that:

• Procedural rules should not override substantive justice.
• Judges must exercise discretion judiciously rather than applying rigid technicalities.
• The rejection of an entire list due to a single late document is improper.
• Pre-trial and disclosure procedures under the new Civil Procedure Code amendments aim to eliminate delays, but courts still have discretion to allow evidence where justice demands it.

The case serves as a critical precedent for ensuring fair trial practices and balancing procedural discipline with equitable justice in Sri Lanka’s civil litigation framework.