Upul Palitha Mahanama v. Wijayahenagedara Sumanawathie – CA CASE NO.203/2002-2002

The case between Wijayahenagedara Sumanawathie (Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent) and Upul Palitha Mahanama (Substituted Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant) addressed whether the District Judge erred in refusing the Defendant’s application to amend his answer to claim restoration of possession and damages, and in permitting the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the action under Section 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Code following allegations of extra-judicial acquisition of possession. It was held that a new cause of action arising after the original answer but before its amendment was valid for inclusion, and that the rigid application of the procedural rule fixing parties’ rights at the institution of action could be excepted for subsequent events and equitable considerations. The principle reaffirme