V. Vinokanthan vs. Wimal Wickramarachchi – SC APPEAL 10/2015-2024

In the case between Kanapathi Veeraputhran (including substituted plaintiff V. Vinokanthan) and Wimal Wickramarachchi, the court addressed the issues of whether additional issues (nos. 14 and 15) were lawfully framed after trial without full opportunity for the parties to be heard, and whether the plaintiff had adequately identified the disputed land as required by section 41 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the lower courts’ dismissal of the action was justified, as the additional issues were framed within the bounds of judicial discretion and there was a critical failure by the plaintiff to properly identify the subject matter of the litigation. The court relied on precedents such as Hameed v. Cassim and Seylan Bank Ltd v. Clement Charles, reaffirming the principle that prec