Mendis v. Abeysinghe and Another – sllr 1989 volume 2 page 262

In the case between Mendis (Plaintiff-Appellant) and Abeysinge and Another (Defendant-Respondents, including the executrix of the Estate of G. Speldwinde), the court addressed whether leave to appeal may be granted ex mero motu without prior notice or hearing of the respondent, pursuant to Article 128 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules, and examined the effect of non-compliance with Rule 35 regarding service of written submissions. The court held that procedural default under Rule 35 does not necessitate dismissal of the appeal but restricts only the right to be heard. It was established that unless the default is accompanied by a lack of due diligence causing real injustice, objections should not prevail. This determination reaffirmed the discretionary nature of sanctions for