Nanayakkara v. Warnakulasuriya – sllr 1993 volume 2 page 289

In NANAYAKKARA (Plaintiff) v. WARNAKULASURIYA (Defendant), the court addressed the failure to hypothecate a security deposit for costs of appeal as mandated under the Civil Procedure Code, and whether discretionary relief under s. 759(2) could be extended despite procedural non-compliance and attorney negligence. It was held that absence of deliberate omission and the lack of material prejudice to the respondent permitted grant of relief. The decision reaffirmed that judicial discretion under s. 759(2) could accommodate procedural lapses where no significant harm resulted, emphasizing reliance on precedents such as Sameen v. Abeywickrema and Mendis v. Jinadasa. The ruling clarified that negligence by legal representatives does not irrevocably defeat the client’s right to substantive appell