Case No: SC/APPEAL/1/2025
Parties Involved:

• Appellant: Niyakulage Dilruk Sanjeewa Fernando
• Respondents: Diyagama Vidanelage Somawathie Perera & Meddakandage Anilka Rohini Perera

Background of the Case

This appeal arises from the order of the District Court of Panadura, which rejected the plaintiff’s list of witnesses and documents for being filed out of time. The High Court of Civil Appeal of Kalutara affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the rejection of the plaintiff’s documents and witnesses was legally justified.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the plaintiff’s entire list of witnesses and documents was justified.
2. Interpretation of section 121(2) of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the deadline for filing lists of witnesses and documents.
3. The applicability of section 175 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows courts to permit unlisted witnesses and documents in special circumstances.
4. The impact of amendments introduced by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, No. 29 of 2023.

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

1. Strict Interpretation of Deadlines – The Supreme Court confirmed that lists of witnesses and documents must be filed at least 15 days before the first date fixed for trial, not just before any trial date. The plaintiff’s filing was late by one day, leading to rejection.
2. Improper Rejection of Entire List – While the trial court upheld an objection to marking a document (Deed No. 10421) due to late filing, it wrongly rejected the entire witness and document list. The Court should have assessed each item separately.
3. Court Discretion under Section 175 – Courts have discretion to allow unlisted witnesses and documents if special circumstances justify it. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural law should serve justice rather than obstruct it.
4. Impact of Legal Amendments – The amendments in 2023 require parties to submit witness and document lists before the pre-trial conference rather than trial. However, older cases remain governed by the previous rules, making this ruling relevant for pending litigation.

Decision & Outcome

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant:

• The rejection of the plaintiff’s entire list was unjustified.
• The District Court and High Court’s decisions were overturned.
• The deed in question (Deed No. 10421) should be marked in evidence.
• The trial must proceed with due consideration of all relevant documents and witnesses.

Legal Implications

1. Clarification on Deadlines – This case reaffirms that lists must be submitted before the first trial date and not be delayed due to postponements.
2. Judicial Discretion on Evidence – Courts should not summarily reject entire lists without assessing individual items.
3. Reinforcement of Due Process – Legal procedures should facilitate justice rather than create barriers through technicalities.

Read Full Judgement