Karunasekera V Rev. Chandananda – sllr 2004 volume 2 page 082

In the case between the Viharadhipathi of the Ethkanda Raja Maha Viharaya (plaintiff-respondent) and the petitioner challenging the District Judge’s order (defendant/petitioner), the court addressed whether failure to produce mandatory documents under Rule 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1990 rendered a revision application fatally deficient. It was held that the absence of essential documents—especially the trial judgment and supporting evidence—prevented a proper determination of whether a substantial question of law existed, resulting in the dismissal of the application. The principle reaffirmed was that mere non-compliance with procedural requirements does not compel dismissal unless substantive appellate inquiry is frustrated. Emphasis was placed on the need for manda