S. Wimalasena vs N.A Karunawathie – CA PHC NO. 125/2007-2013

In the case between S. Wimalasena and W. Lenchina (Appellants) and N.A. Karunawathie (Respondent), the court addressed whether an appeal could proceed in circumstances where the appellants failed to respond to a court notice requiring the deposit of brief fees. It was held that failure to comply with the procedural directive to deposit brief fees resulted in the rejection of the appeal. The principle reaffirmed was that compliance with court-imposed procedural requirements is mandatory for the continuation of appellate proceedings. Reliance was placed on the applicable procedural rules governing appeals, underscoring that non-compliance with such orders justifies procedural dismissal without consideration of substantive merits.

A.W.A.Salam J. — It was determined that the appellants were