Amirthagowry Subramanian Nee Navaratnam vs Jeyadevi Arunaseelam – CA NO. 1182/99-2017

In the case between Jeyadevi Arunaseelam (Plaintiff-Respondent) and Amirthagowry Subramanian (Nee Navaratnam) (Substituted-Defendant-Appellant), the court addressed the issue of whether the District Judge of Trincomalee committed an error of law by framing and answering additional issues (23 to 27) in a rei vindicatio action without affording the parties an opportunity to respond to those issues. It was held that, although the issues were allowed at the conclusion of the trial, both parties had sufficient opportunity to put forth evidence on such matters, and there was no deprivation of the right to respond. The principle reaffirmed is that a court may in its discretion frame or allow issues at any stage before judgment under Sections 146 and 149 of the Civil Procedure Code, provided parti