Amaradasa 9th Defendant-Appellant Vs. Dasanayake Lekamlage Kusumawathi, Amuhengoda, Kiriella. – CA 646/99-2012

In Dasanayake Lekamlage Kusumawathi (plaintiff-respondent) v. U. Amaradasa (9th defendant-appellant) and others, the court considered whether a defendant in a partition action, who had previously sought dismissal and claimed entitlement to certain lots, is entitled under law to prosecute the partition action after the plaintiff requests withdrawal. It was held that a defendant is only entitled to continue prosecution if the plaintiff fails or neglects to proceed, not where the withdrawal is a deliberate act. This position reaffirmed the principle set out in Section 70 of the Partition Law No. 21 of 1977 and case law including Amrasingha v Podimenike, emphasizing that voluntary withdrawal by the plaintiff precludes defendants from stepping in to prosecute. The significance of this decision