Rosalin Niluka Sathyarani vs. Office in-charge, Police Station Paliyagoda – CA PHC 66/2005-2005

The case between Rosalin Niluka Sathyarani (Appellant) and the Office in-charge, Police Station, Paliyagoda, and the Hon. Attorney General (Respondents) addressed the issue of whether the appellant exercised due diligence in prosecuting her appeal, specifically in relation to the payment of brief fees and notification of her change of address as directed by the Court. It was determined that the appellant failed to comply with Court orders by not paying the requisite fees and not updating her address, resulting in correspondence being undelivered. The appeal was dismissed under rules 34 and 13(b) of the Supreme Court Rules due to these deficiencies, reaffirming the principle that appellants must comply with procedural requirements for their appeals to be heard. This decision emphasized the