Mohottihamy vs Lekam Mahatmaya – clr volume 1 page 062

In D.C. Kurunegala, 22 Mohottihamy v. Lekam Mahatmeya, the court addressed whether, under section 85 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Stamp Ordinance No. 3 of 1890, a defendant is entitled to an authenticated copy of a decree nisi rather than a notice merely embodying its substance. It was determined that the proper notice under section 85 must contain the decree itself—not solely a summary—and that the statutory requirements of serving an authenticated copy with the appropriate stamp duty must be adhered to. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that procedural compliance and the fulfillment of fiscal requirements are prerequisites for the efficacy of judicial notices, with emphasis placed on statutory interpretation and adherence.

Dias J. — It was found that the notice submitted by th