Abeywardena and Others v. Euginahamy and Others – sllr 1984 volume 2 page 231

In the case between Abeywardena and others (Plaintiffs) and Euginahamy and others (Defendants), the court addressed the issue of whether an amendment to the plaint, clarifying the plaintiffs’ title to a disputed strip of land, should be permitted despite its delayed submission and the potential ramifications on the defendants’ plea of prescription. It was held that amendments necessary to elucidate title, which do not introduce a new cause of action or widen the scope of the case, should be allowed even if belatedly filed. This position was reaffirmed on the basis of legal precedents, including Seneviratne v. Candappa, Punchimahattmaya, Menike and Others v. Ratnayake and Others, and Waduganathan Chettiyar v. Sena Abdul Cassim. The appellate decision emphasized that such an amendment consti