De Fonseka v. Dharmawardena – sllr 1994 volume 3 page 049

In the case between De Fonseka (Plaintiff-Respondent, landlord) and Dharmawardena (Defendant-Petitioner, tenant), the court addressed the issue of whether the defendant’s claim of non-service of summons could be established in light of the presumption afforded to the Fiscal’s report and affidavit, and the proper procedural conduct when the Fiscal Officer’s testimony is unavailable for reasons not attributable to the plaintiff. The court held that the burden of proof to establish non-service of summons rested upon the defendant and determined that principles of natural justice required that the Fiscal Officer’s evidence be admitted despite the absence being due to external obligations. The holding reaffirmed the principle that procedural integrity and fairness under the Civil Procedure Code