K.A. Piyadasa alias Piyadasa Kandanamulla vs S.A.N. Keerthi Perera – CA PHC NO. 143/2007-2013

The case between K.A. Piyadasa alias Piyadasa Kandanamulla (Appellant) and S.A.N. Keerthi Perera (Respondent) concerned whether an appeal should be permitted to proceed when the appellant failed to comply with the procedural requirement to deposit brief fees, particularly where the appellant could not be contacted at the address provided. The court determined that the procedural rules were satisfied by the Registrar sending notices to the address supplied by the appellant. Due to the absence of payment of brief fees and the inability to serve notice to a valid address, the appeal was ordered to be rejected. This outcome reaffirmed the principle that strict procedural compliance regarding service of notice and payment of court fees is required for an appeal to proceed. The decision consider