R.L. Nilgiriya & another vs Gamini De Soysa & two others – CALA 114/2005-2011

In the case between B.R.J. De Soysa and others and R.L. Nilgiriya and another, the court addressed the issue of whether the District Court acted lawfully in setting aside the abatement of an action and permitting substitution of heirs after the death of a plaintiff in a rei vindicatio claim. It was held that the order abating the action ex mero motu by the District Court without proper notice or application was improper. The principle reaffirmed is that abatement for want of prosecution, especially following the death of a party, cannot be imposed without notice and proper opportunity for parties to act, in accordance with Sections 393, 394, 402, and 403 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decision was based on statutory interpretation and relevant judicial precedent, emphasizing that substit