Madduma Liyanage Podinona vs Korale Kankanamge Gimara – CA 1173/98-2013

The case between Madduma Liyanage Podinona (Plaintiff) and Korale Kankanamge Gimara (Defendant) addressed the issue of whether the defendant-appellant had diligently prosecuted an appeal after the plaintiff-respondent’s whereabouts became unknown. It was determined that the onus lay with the defendant-appellant to take proper procedural steps, including the substitution of heirs, as required by law. Following a failure to comply with these obligations and a lack of prosecution, the appeal was dismissed in accordance with Rule 34 of the Supreme Court Rules. The court reaffirmed the principle that parties must actively engage in prosecuting their appeals and comply with procedural duties, particularly when the circumstances involve a missing party. Reliance was placed on the procedural frame