Silva vs Gunatillake – clr volume 1 page 045

In the matter between the Partition Commissioner (Plaintiff) and a defendant party to two partition suits, the court considered whether the defendant, by not opposing the Commissioner’s motion for fees and expenses within the partition proceedings, is legally bound to pay the apportioned share as ordered by the District Court. It was determined that the defendant’s non-opposition constituted binding consent to the District Court’s order for payment. Although the issue of remuneration should have ideally been resolved within the partition suits rather than a separate action, the plaintiff’s entitlement was upheld. The decision reaffirmed that parties who tacitly consent by non-opposition are held to court-ordered fees and costs under established procedural principles. This outcome underscor