Gangoda Kumarihamy vs K M M G Wijeratna – CA 1275/96-2011

In the case between K. M. M. G. Wijeratna (Plaintiff-Respondent) and Gangoda Kumarihamy (11th Defendant-Appellant), the court addressed whether the 11th defendant-appellant was entitled to set aside or vary a District Judge’s judgment ordering the partition of property and the related interlocutory decree. It was determined that, despite the 11th defendant-appellant having an attorney on record, her absence at trial and the lack of contesting points did not warrant intervention or alteration of the District Court’s decision. The principle reaffirmed was that a party who fails to participate in proceedings or offer an explanation for default cannot later seek to overturn the resultant judgment, provided due process was observed. The decision relied on a review of the procedural fairness at