Perera vs Amarasena – CA 1298/98-2014

The case between H.D. Perera (1st Defendant-Appellant/Substituted Plaintiff) and W.K. Amarasena (3A Defendant-Respondent) addressed whether an appeal may be properly filed against an interlocutory order that refused the preparation of a new plan in a civil proceeding, prior to recording plaintiff’s evidence. The holding established that no right of appeal exists against interlocutory orders without leave of Court under Section 754(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. This decision reaffirmed the established principle that appeals from non-final orders require leave and emphasized correct appellate procedure, leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of compliance.

K.T. Chitrasiri J. — It was determined that the order dated 04.11.1998, refusing to allow preparation of a new plan, constituted