Athavuda Arachchige Premalatha Pigera Jayawardena vs. C.B. Anil Upananda – CA/RII/05/2023-2024

In the case between the Substituted Defendant-Petitioner (Athavuda Arachchige Premalatha Pigera Jayawardena) and the Plaintiff-Respondent (C.B. Anil Upananda), the court addressed the validity of a settlement recorded prior to trial and whether compliance with sections 408 and 91 of the Civil Procedure Code had been achieved. It was determined that the settlement, entered following substitution of parties, was neither properly notified to the court nor supported by the required written motion or memorandum; the Substituted Defendant signed without adequate explanation or independent advice. The findings established that statutory procedures must be strictly observed for settlement decrees to have binding legal effect, as supported by relevant case law including Malani v. Somapala and Lamee