Sheila Seneviratne v. Shereen Dharmaratne – sllr 1998 volume 1 page 383

In the case between Sheila Seneviratne (plaintiff) and Shereen Dharmaratne (defendant), the court addressed whether the defendant’s failure to produce specified documents for inspection constituted wilful and contumacious conduct under sections 104, 106, and 109 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the non-production of documents did not automatically warrant striking out the defence, as such action remains discretionary with the court depending on the facts and context. Emphasis was placed on the interpretation that discretion under section 109 CPC requires clear evidence of wilful and deliberate disobedience, which was not established in this instance. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. The decisio