Sumanasekera v. Yapa – sllr 2006 volume 3 page 183

In SUMANASEKERA vs YAPA, the court addressed whether the mandatory procedural requirements for the service of notice and petition of appeal under sections 754(4), 755(2)(b), 755(3), and 759 of the Civil Procedure Code were satisfied, and whether non-compliance could be excused. The findings established that service of the Notice of Appeal to counsel, rather than the Respondent’s Registered Attorney, constituted a breach of the statute. Strict adherence to the prescribed procedure, reaffirmed through reliance on prevailing legal authorities, was deemed non-discretionary. The appeal was thus dismissed, confirming the principle that procedural compliance is essential to appellate relief, without the necessity of showing material prejudice.

IMAM J. — The appeal was dismissed on the grounds t