Mapatunage Roland Perera vs. Sunder Ayyar Rajagopalan – SC APPEAL 192/2012-2015

In the case between Mapatunage Roland Perera (Plaintiff) and Sunder Ayyar Rajagopalan (Defendant), the court addressed whether an amendment to the answer was permissible under Section 93(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the Defendant’s request for amendment did not satisfy the legal requirement of proving grave and irremediable injustice if the amendment was refused, nor was a sufficient explanation given for the absence of laches. The principle reaffirmed is that procedural provisions for amending pleadings must not be used to delay litigation and that courts must insist upon strict legal compliance when such amendments are sought. The decision relied on the interpretation of Section 93(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and emphasized the necessity for clear justification bef