Pothuwilage Karunadasa Arachchigoda Dodanagoda vs H.M. Sudubanda Arachchigoda Dodanagoda – CA 918/98 F -2013

The case between Pothuwilage Karunadasa Arachchigoda (Dodanagoda) and H.M. Sudubanda Arachchigoda (Dodanagoda) addressed the issue of whether an appeal (CA.918/98(F); District Court Matugama 1618/P) could proceed in the absence of the parties and their Attorneys when reasonable attempts to notify them of the hearing had failed. It was held that the appeal could not be further considered due to non-appearance by the parties, leading to its abatement. The decision reaffirmed the principle that judicial proceedings require the participation or representation of interested parties unless otherwise provided by law. The findings were based on procedural rules mandating notification and registry practice, emphasizing the necessity of effective notice and the consequences of parties’ failure to re