Paramalingam vs Sirisena and Another – sllr 2001 volume 2 page 239

In the case between the Plaintiff Respondent and the Defendant Respondent (with an Added Defendant, Paramalingam), the court addressed the issue of whether a further amendment to the plaint should be permitted after significant delay and attorney negligence, under Sections 93 and 207 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that condoning such belated amendments—particularly where caused by lack of diligence—would result in prejudice and create potential for res judicata in subsequent lawsuits. The decision reaffirmed the principle that procedural amendments post-trial should not be allowed where attributable to carelessness and where prejudice is demonstrable. The analysis referred to the statutory framework of the Civil Procedure Code and the doctrine that delay defeats equities, clarify