Rohana v. Shyama Attygala and Others – sllr 1999 volume 3 page 381

In the case between Rohana (plaintiff-petitioner) and Shyama Attygala and others (defendants-respondents), the issue concerned whether Lot 10, as depicted on a specific survey plan, constituted a road reservation warranting a right of way and demolition order, as well as the propriety of amending parties under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code after a significant delay. It was held that permitting such an amendment, years after the relevant information became available to the plaintiff through a Commission report submitted on 16.10.93, would constitute a lack of due diligence and result in injustice to the defendants. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code must be guided by established legal practice and