W. Antony Fonseka vs K.R.M. Harischandra – CA APPEAL NO. 375/98-2013

In the case between K.R.M. Harischandra (plaintiff) and W. Antony Fonseka (defendant), the court addressed whether there was valid cause to interfere with the District Court’s judgment ordering the defendant to pay Rs. 15,000/- plus legal interest based on a cheque issued by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, and whether the appeal had been diligently prosecuted. It was held that, given the consistent absence of both parties and their attorneys at hearings despite repeated notices, there was no evidence of diligence in prosecuting the appeal. The principle reaffirmed was that appeals lacking diligent prosecution and without substantial grounds to challenge the lower court’s findings should not succeed. Reference was made to the clear evidence regarding the issuance of the cheque, and