Karawita v. Dias – sllr 2002 volume 2 page 197

In the case between Karawita (Plaintiff) and Dias (Defendant), the court addressed the issue of whether leave to appeal could be granted after the lapse of the prescribed period, with specific reference to alleged non-compliance with the procedural requirements for service of judgment under sections 184(1) and 184(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that notice given to counsel in open court is sufficient notification to the party, and no procedural defect occurred as the counsel for both parties was present and took notice of the pronouncement of judgment. The principle reaffirmed is that proper notice to the attorney fulfills statutory requirements and that speculation or insufficient evidence of procedural irregularity cannot justify an extension of time for leave to appeal. Thi