Nimalraj v. Tharmarajah And Others – sllr 2005 volume 3 page 309

In the case of Nimalraj (plaintiff-respondent) versus Tharmarajah and Others (defendants, including the 3rd defendant-petitioner), the Court of Appeal considered whether the plaintiffs’ delayed application to amend the plaint conformed to the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Sections 21 and 93(2), and whether excessive delay (laches) precluded such amendment. It was held that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the procedural requirements by proceeding with a replication instead of promptly amending the plaint following the addition of the 3rd defendant-petitioner. The findings established that the application to amend, made after substantial delay and several trial dates, was untimely and failed to satisfy statutory provisions or overcome the bar posed by la