Korallage Edward Ranasinghe v. Ranasinghe Arachchige Dingiri Mahatmaya et al. – CA 289/99 F -2017

In the case between Korallage Edward Ranasinghe (Plaintiff-Appellant) and, among others, Ranasinghe Arachchige Dingiri Mahatmaya (1st Defendant-Respondent) and Mahinda Meedeniya (7th Defendant-Respondent), the court addressed whether a delay of over three years in delivering the district court’s judgment constituted a sufficient reason to set aside that judgment, and whether the preliminary plan prepared in the partition proceedings satisfied Section 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Partition Act by adequately identifying the subject land. It was held that, although the delay was significant, it did not amount to a grave injustice requiring retrial, and the legal requirements regarding the identification of the corpus were met. The principles reaffirmed included that mere judicial delay, in the absenc