Wickramarathne vs. Mendis and Others – sllr 2016 volume 1 page 135

In the case between Wickramarathne (appellant) and Mendis and Others (respondents), the court addressed whether the omission of the registered attorney-at-law’s name in the Notice of Appeal and Petition of Appeal constitutes a fatal procedural defect warranting dismissal. It was held that while procedural rules require attorney identification, such omission does not justify dismissal if other documents, such as proxies and journal entries, unambiguously identify the acting attorney. The reasoning reaffirmed the principle that procedural rules should facilitate the administration of justice rather than act as rigid barriers against substantive rights. Reliance was placed on the Civil Procedure Code, including sections 27(1), 755, and 758, as well as established judicial precedents supportin