Abeyawardena vs Marikar – clr volume 2 page 076_2

The case between Abeyawardena (deceased, represented by executor) and Marikar addressed whether a motion to substitute an executor as the plaintiff and simultaneously revive judgment with execution was procedurally proper under the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the combined motion was improper because the Code does not provide for the revival of judgments and that substitution of parties must adhere to the statutory method. The decision reaffirmed the principle that procedural formalities in substitution and execution must be strictly observed. Reliance was placed on the construction of sections 91, 395, and 405 of the Civil Procedure Code. The finding emphasized that separate applications must be made for substitution, and a revived judgment cannot be ordered where statutory auth