Gunarathna vs Chandralatha – CA 408/98 F -2013

The case between P.P.D. Nimal Gunarathna (Appellant) and Sethuwa Durayalage Chandralatha (Respondent) addressed whether an appeal could proceed after the death of several defendant-respondents whose heirs had not been substituted. It was held that the appellant failed to diligently prosecute the appeal, as no steps were taken for substitution despite repeated opportunities and the appellant’s absence on the final hearing date. This reaffirmed the principle that procedural compliance regarding substitution is essential to maintain an appeal. Reliance was placed on the established rules of appellate procedure, highlighting that the failure to diligently prosecute or to substitute parties leads to abatement of the appeal and consequent termination of proceedings.

K.T. Chitrasiri J. — The pr