Roshan v. Somasiri – sllr 2005 volume 3 page 045

In ROSHAN vs SOMASIRI, the dispute concerned execution of a writ pending appeal and whether the defendant–petitioner had demonstrated, by sufficient evidence, the risk of substantial loss if execution proceeded. The issue required analysis of the sufficiency of evidence presented in support of a motion to stay execution under the Civil Procedure Code and Judicature Act provisions. The findings established that the defendant–petitioner’s general assertions failed to evidence substantial loss as required by precedent, including Don Piyasena vs. Mayawathi Jayasuriya and Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. The court declined to interfere with the District Court’s order, refused leave to appeal, and imposed costs, reaffirming the principle that execution will not be stayed absent