Pallage Arachchilage Sirisena vs. Pallage Arachchilage Lihinin Sinyo – CA 643/98-2013

In the case between Pallage Arachchilage Lihinin Sinyo (Plaintiff/Complainant Respondent) and Pallage Arachchilage Sirisena (6th Defendant Appellant), the court addressed whether the appeal initiated by the 6th Defendant Appellant should proceed in light of the deaths of several plaintiff-respondents and the failure to substitute their heirs. It was determined that the appellant had not diligently prosecuted the appeal, evidenced by prolonged inaction and the absence of the appellant or their representative during proceedings. The court held that the appeal stood abated, thereby terminating the appellate process. The decision reaffirmed the principle that diligence and procedural compliance are essential for the continuation of appeals, consistent with established procedural law, and impac