Seylan Bank V Thangaveil – sllr 2004 volume 2 page 101

In the case between Seylan Bank (plaintiff) and Sinnaiah Thangavelu (defendant), the court addressed whether a clerical misdescription of the defendant’s name in the plaint justified revision of the lower court’s orders. It was held that mere correction of a clerical error, absent any error in the defendant’s identity and where the statutory right of appeal was not exercised and unexplained delays were present, does not meet the threshold for invoking revisionary jurisdiction. The principle reaffirmed is that procedural errors that do not affect substantive rights or identity and are unaccompanied by exceptional circumstances cannot be grounds for revision. The decision relied on established authority concerning appellate and revisionary oversight, clarifying that only exceptional circumst