Wanigaratna v. Dissanayake – sllr 2002 volume 2 page 331

In Wanigaratna v. Dissanayake, the dispute addressed the validity and procedural requirements for revoking a proxy representation under the Civil Procedure Code. The central question concerned whether a party may validly revoke the authority of a registered attorney in accordance with section 27(2) by obtaining the court’s leave and providing notice to the registered attorney. The facts included the sequence of the notice of appeal, filing and acceptance of a new proxy, and the absence of a contemporaneous written motion. It was determined that the revocation of a proxy, if performed with proper court leave and notification, remains valid despite the absence of a formal motion at the time of revocation. The application to set aside a prior order, alleging procedural defects, was dismissed.