Mudiyanse and Others v. Bandulahamy – sllr 1989 volume 2 page 383

In the case between Mudiyanse and Others (plaintiff-respondent) and Bandulahamy (defendant-appellant), the court addressed the issue of whether an alleged mistake in identifying Lot No 331 instead of Lot No 335 in a settlement was sufficient to set aside or alter the decree, and whether the remedy of restitutio in integrum was available for such an error. The court held that the mistake did not satisfy the legal requirements of being essential, reasonable, or excusable, and that no damage resulted from the error. It was emphasized that neither revision nor restitutio in integrum was warranted on the facts, reaffirming the principle that a mere mistake, absent illegality or inducement by misrepresentation, does not of itself justify the grant of such extraordinary remedies. The judgment rel