Thomas vs. Samarakoon – sllr 2011 volume 2 page 253

In Thomas v. Samarakoon, the court addressed whether the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for absence at an ex parte hearing, in light of counsel’s simultaneous commitments and logistical challenges, was justified under Section 88(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the trial court failed to exercise judicial discretion appropriately by not considering relevant mitigating circumstances, such as the plaintiff’s travel difficulties and the counsel’s engagement in another court. The established principle is that adequate reason must be shown for absence before dismissing an action. The decision relied on interpretative standards under the Civil Procedure Code, underscoring the necessity for trial courts to provide parties with a fair opportunity to be heard and for dismissals