Pathirage Daya Amarasinghe v. Alagiya Hakuru Sopalin et al. – CA PHC 248/2003-2003

In the case between Pathirage Daya Amarasinghe (Petitioner-Respondent) and Alagiya Hakuru Sopalin, Ilandari Deva Somasiri, Hewa Hakuru Leelawathie (Respondents-Appellants), the Court of Appeal addressed the legality of Magistrate and High Court orders concerning possession of disputed paddy land. The central issue was whether the statutory requirement under Section 66(1)(b) of the Primary Court Procedure Act—specifically, the demonstration of an actual or imminent breach of the peace—was satisfied for the invocation of court jurisdiction. It was held that neither the pleadings nor the facts disclosed an actual or likely breach of the peace, and the proper jurisdiction for the dispute was under agrarian statutory frameworks. The judgment set aside the High Court order, upheld the Magistrate