Anura Samarawickrama Lokuhetty et al. vs P.P.D. Yapa et al. – CA 1172/96-2013

In the case between Anura Samarawickrama Lokuhetty and P.P.D. Yapa, the issue concerned the propriety of the District Judge’s summary dismissal of the plaintiffs’ partition action due to the plaintiffs’ absence on the first trial date despite representation by counsel. It was determined that the District Judge failed to adjudicate the counsel’s application for adjournment before dismissing the action, and that when plaintiffs are represented, judicial procedure requires first deciding any such application before taking further action. This principle underscores the necessity for adherence to proper procedural safeguards under partition law, with reference to relevant procedural rules, thereby confirming that refusal or acceptance of adjournment must be dealt with on record and only then ma