Ratnayake v. Padmini De Silva and Another – sllr 1990 volume 2 page 191

The case between Ratnayake (applicant/petitioner) and Padmini de Silva and another (respondents) addressed whether non-compliance with Section 66(4) of the Primary Courts’ Procedure Act—specifically, the failure to affix notice on the disputed property—affects the court’s jurisdiction. It was determined that such non-compliance constitutes a procedural irregularity rather than a fatal defect, and does not undermine the court’s authority to adjudicate the matter. The legal reasoning rested on the distinction between irregularities and jurisdictional errors, referencing authorities such as Craig v. Kanseen and others. The revision application contesting the prior order was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that procedural omissions that do not prejudice parties or impair substantive right