N. Wimalasena and another v. P.E.A. Jayawickrama and another (Liquidators) – CALA 106/2006-2011

In the dispute between N. Wimalasena and another and P.E.A. Jayawickrama and another (Liquidators of Union Trust and Investments Limited), the court addressed whether the District Court’s order permitting the substitution of liquidators as plaintiffs after a prolonged delay should stand, or whether the action should abate for want of prosecution pursuant to section 402 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that, in cases where an action is “laid by” for settlement or administrative reasons with mutual consent, restoration to the trial roll is the responsibility of the court rather than the plaintiff. The principle reaffirmed is that abatement under section 402 CPC does not apply when inactivity arises from the court’s or mutual directions, as established by authorities including Lorensu