H.Piyadasa Perera Vs. B.G.Coory – CA 1104/00-2017

In the case between H. Piyadasa Perera and B. G. Coory, the court addressed whether the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for non-appearance—despite the presence of counsel—was proper in law and whether the refusal to reinstate the action, despite prompt application and demonstrable reasonable grounds, was legally sustainable. The holding established that the presence of a registered attorney constitutes the litigant’s presence, and the trial court had erred by applying an incorrect, unduly rigid standard when considering reinstatement. Principles from Section 24 and Section 88(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, and relevant precedent such as Alima Umma Vs. Siyaneris and Rev. Sumanathissa v. Harry, were invoked, reaffirming that absence excused by genuine, involuntary reasons—particularly w