Senaratne And Another v. Wijelatha – sllr 2005 volume 3 page 076

In the case between Senaratne and Another (petitioners) and Wijelatha (respondent) with additional parties, the court addressed the issue of a discrepancy between the land area depicted in the preliminary partition plan and that described in the plaint, focusing on whether the trial judge erred in allowing an unchallenged admission of the corpus and in not questioning the surveyor on 6.25 additional perches of land. It was held that the District Judge’s order disallowing the defendants’ issues and accepting the plan, without adequate clarification, resulted in a procedural error warranting revision. The principle reaffirmed was that revisionary jurisdiction under Section 753 of the Civil Procedure Code should be exercised where procedural errors result in a miscarriage of justice. The deci