Fernando v. Tennakoon – sllr 2010 volume 2 page 022

In the case between E.V.T. de Silva and Geetha Amarasinghe (plaintiffs) and Sena Ranjith Fernando (defendant), with Tennakoon seeking intervention, the court addressed the issue of whether Tennakoon, despite a significant delay and allegations of laches, was entitled to intervene in a partnership dissolution and winding up dispute. It was held that Tennakoon’s intervention was permissible and that allegations regarding delay and laches should be examined at the full trial stage. The principle reaffirmed is that judicial discretion under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code permits the addition of necessary parties where justice so requires, and that evidentiary and procedural objections regarding intervention should not preclude substantive examination at trial. The decision emphasized t