Pieris vs Silva – clr volume 3 page 021

In Pieris v. Silva, the court considered whether an appeal could be admitted under section 765 of the Civil Procedure Code despite the appellant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements, specifically the deposit required for service of notice per section 756. The sequence of proceedings showed that the appellant defaulted in making the required deposit; affidavits indicated that the default occurred due to asserted causes beyond the appellant’s control. The legal question centered on the scope of the Supreme Court’s discretion under sections 765 and subsequent provisions when an appeal was rendered inoperative (“abated”) by procedural default. Ultimately, it was determined that the Court has jurisdiction to admit appeals notwithstanding some procedural lapses, but that relief will