Jayaratne v. Jayaratne and Another – sllr 2002 volume 3 page 331

In the case between Jayaratna (plaintiff-respondent) and Jayaratne and Another (defendant-petitioner), the court addressed whether an amended answer, introducing a cause of action based on adultery that allegedly arose after the original answer was filed, may be permitted in a divorce action. It was held that the rights of the parties in a divorce action are fixed as at the date of the plaint, and subsequent events, such as new acts of adultery occurring after the answer, do not justify permitting an amended answer to introduce a fresh cause of action. The principle reaffirmed that causes of action must accrue by the date of the plaint, with reliance placed on relevant case law, including the distinction drawn from Bednarz v. Bednarz and Arunachalam v. Mohamadu. The decision emphasized tha