corpus juris sl

33 Pages·2013·0.48 MB·English

CORPUS JURIS SL

1. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) න(cid:6) (cid:2)ධාන (cid:9) (cid:10)ෙ(cid:12)(cid:13) හ(cid:15)වන (cid:2)සඳනා

2. ඔ(cid:20)(cid:21) (cid:22)(cid:23)ෙ(cid:24) භාරය සහ R v. Carr-Briant
rule

3. Natalie Abeysundara v. Saranalatha
Abeysundara nee Edirisighe

iiiissúússúú,,,,aa aa kkkkvvvvqq qq úúúúOOOOddddkkkk kkkkSS;;SS;;ssffssffhhhhaa§§aa§§ yyyyuuuuqqjjqqjjkkkk úúúúiiii````ooookkkkdddd
kS;S{ yßYa me,afmd,

isú,a kvqjl§ kvq lghq;= wdrïN jkafka kvq ksñ;a; meñKs,a, u.ska wêlrKhg
meñKs,s lsÍu u.sks' kvq ksñ;a; iïnkaOfhka m%;smdok isú,a kvq úOdk ix.%yfha
5 j.ka;sfha olajd we;' ta wkqj hï ;eke;af;l=g ;j;a ;eke;af;l=f.ka isÿjk
hï jrola je<elaùu i`oyd fyda ta iïnkaOfhka iykh ,nd .ekSu i`oyd fyda
kvqjla mjrkq ,eìh yels kï th kvq ksñ;a;la fõ' ta ;=<g whs;sjdislula
fkd§u" ne`§ula bIag lsÍu m%;slafIam lsÍu" hq;=lula bgq lsÍu meyer yeÍu iy
ksh; ydkshla lsÍulao we;=,;a fõ' ta wkqj .eg`tjla we;s l,ays§ fiajdodhlhd
kS;S{jrhd fj; ,nd fok ksjerÈ f;dr;=re wkqj isú,a kvq ksñ;a;la we;s ù
we;ao hkak ;SrKh lsÍu m%:u ld¾hhs' jeo.;a lreKla jkafka fpla m;a" fm%dñiß
fkdaÜgq yd úksuh ì,am;a jeks f,aLk u; we;s jk kvq ksñ;a;la jk úg§ wmrdO
kS;sh hgf;a jqj;a kvq lghq;= isÿ l, yels m%;smdok we;s ksidfjka fiajdodhlhd
ta iïnkaOfhka ±kqj;a lr iqÿiq l%shdmámdáh f;dard .ekSuhs'

kvq ksñ;a;la we;s nj ksYaph lr .ekSfuka miqj kS;S{jrhd úiska isÿ lrkafka
meñKs,a, ilia lsÍuhs' kshñ; wdldrfhka meñKs,a, ilia lsÍu iïnkaOfhka
ie,lSfï§ meñKs,a,la kvq úNd. lsÍfuka f;drj m%;slafIam lsÍfï fyda bj; ,sfï
yelshdj wêlrKhg we;s ksid isú,a kvq úOdk ix.%yfha§ i`oyka lr we;s Í;s
ms<sme§ug uq,a wjia:dfõ§u kS;S{jrhd ie,ls,su;a úh hq;= fõ' meñKs,a, ilia
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 1
CORPUS JURIS SL

lsÍfï§ kS;S{jrhd isys ;nd .; hq;= wfkla lreKla jkafka kvq ksñ;a; Tmamq
lsÍu i`oyd ud¾.h meñKs,af,ka ilia lr .ekSuhs'

meñKs,a, u.ska wêlrKhg yd ú;a;slreg kvq ksñ;a; fy<s lsÍfuka miqj
wjia:dj ,efnkafka ú;a;slreg ta i`oyd W;a;r ne`Èughs' W;a;rfha§ meñKs,af,a
lshd we;s lreKq ms<s .ekSu" yn lsÍu fyda fldgila ms,sf.k b;sß fldgig yn
lsÍu" muKla fkdj ;uqka úiska lrkq ,enk meyeÈ,s lsÍïo we;=,;a lrkq ,eìh
yel' W;a;rh iïnkaOfhkao ms<smeÈh hq;= Í;s isú,a kvq úOdk ix.%yfha we;=,;a
jk w;r tajd o ksis mßÈ ms,smÈñka W;a;rh f.dkq lsÍug kS;S{jrhd ie,sls,su;a
úh hq;=h'

iuyrla wjia:d j,§ ú;a;slre úiska ish W;a;rfhka meñKs,slreg tfrysj kvq
ksñ;a;la meñKs,s lsÍug bv we;s w;r ^yria b,a,Sula& túg ta i`oyd m%;s
W;a;rhla ne`§fï wjia:dj meñKs,slreg ,efí'

meñKs,a," W;a;rh yd m%;s W;a;rh wd§ ish,af,au tl;=j W;a;rjdo f,iska
ye`Èkafõ'

ffffuuuullllSS SS WWWW;;;;aa;;aa;;rrrrjjjjddddoooojjjj,,,, wwwwrrrruuuuqqKKqqKK jjjjkkkkaaffaaffkkkkaa aa llll==uu==uullllaaooaaoo@@@@

th isú,a kvq úOdk ix.%yfha 146 j.ka;sh wkqj meyeÈ,s lr .; yel' ta wkqj
W;a;rjdo j,ska miqj kvq úNd.h werfUkafka úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ;SrKh lsÍfuks'
ta wdldrfhka ne,Sfï§ W;a;rjdo j, wruqK úi`okd u;= lsÍu nj meyeÈ,sh' fï
nj

“The whole object of pleadings is to bring the parties to an issue, and the meaning of
the rules ------ was to prevent the issue being enlarged, which would prevent either
party from knowing when the cause came on for trial, what the real point to be
discussed and decided' was. In fact, the whole meaning of the system is to narrow
the parties to definite issues, and thereby to diminish expense and delay, especially
as regards the amount of testimony required on either side at the hearing.” Thorp
v. Holdsworth (1876) 3 Ch.D. 637 kvqfõ§ meyeÈ,sj olajd we;'
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 2
CORPUS JURIS SL

tfiau Ô' mS' tia' is,ajd w.úksiqre;=ud úiska Hanaffi v. Nallamma (1998) 1 Sri
LR 73 kvqfõ§ olajkakg fhÿfka “Once issues are framed the case which the court
has to hear and determine becomes crystallised in the issues and the pleadings
recede to the background.” f,isks'
úúúúiiii````ooookkkkdddd hhhhkkkkqq qq @@@@
ir,ju .;aúg úi`okd hkq kvqfõ md¾Yjhla úiska lshdmdkq ,nk wfkla
md¾Yjh úiska m%;slafIam lrkq ,nk fyda yn lrkq ,nk kuq;a md¾Yjhkaf.a
whs;sjdislï ;SrKh lsÍu i`oyd wêlrKh úiska wêlrKuh jYfhka ie,lsh hq;=
bÈßm;a lreKq fõ' fuys§ idlaIs wd{d mkf;a 3 jk j.ka;sfha§ bÈßm;a lreK
hkakg § w¾: ksrEmKfha meyeÈ,s lsÍu isys ;nd .ekSu jeo.;ah' ta wkqj isú,a
kvq úOdkh iïnkaOfhka ;;a ld,fha j,x.=j mj;akd kS;sfha úêúOdk hgf;a hï
wêlrKhla" bÈßm;a lreKla igyka lrk úfgl" ta bÈßm;a lreKg ms<s;=re
jYfhka iaÓr lsÍug fyda m%;slafIam lsÍug we;s lreK bÈßm;a lreKls' isú,a
kvqjl§ úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.Sfuka miqj ta iïnkaOfhka wjika ;SrKhla ,nd
fokafka fuu mokfuks'
“Whenever any material fact is alleged in the pleadings of a cause by either
party and is denied by the other, the fact is “in issue;” but in order that a
fact may be in issue it is not necessary that it be specifically alleged or
denied in the pleadings; it is sufficient that it constitutes one of the
component parts of a fact so alleged or denied.” (Trial Evidence by William
Reynolds, page 8)
W;a;rjdo wkqj wêlrKhg md¾Yjhka úiska yn lrkq ,nk yd ms<s.kq ,nk
lreKq fõ kï tajd ks¾Kh lr .ekSug yelshdj ,efí' ta wkqj ms<s.ekSï fjku;a
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak fjku;a i`oyka lr.kq ,nhs'
úúúúiiii````ÈÈÈÈhhhh hhhhqq;;qq;;== == mmmm%%YY%%YYaakkaakk jjjj,,,, wwwwkkkkaa;;aa;;¾¾¾¾....;;;;hhhh
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak fmr lS wdldrhg fomd¾Yjh úiska tl`. fkdjk lreKq
iïnkaOfhka u;= jk nj meyeÈ,sh' ta wkqj md¾Yjhka úiska isoaêuh lreKq
iïnkaOfhka fukau kS;suh lreKq iïíOfhkao tl`. fkdjk wjia:djka yuq fõ'
ta wkqj ne,Sfï§ úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak j, wka;¾.;h jkafka kS;suh fyda isoaêuh
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 3
CORPUS JURIS SL

lreKq nj fmkS hhs' tfia fyhska isú,a kvq úOdk ix.%yfha kS;suh yd isoaêuh
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak iïnkaOfhka m%;smdok i,iajd ;sfí'
kS;suh úi`Èh hq;= m%Yakhla hkafkka woyia lrkq ,nkafka fomd¾Yjh úiska
ffk;sl lreKla iïnkaOfhka tl`.;ajhg m;a fkdjk wjia:djls' b,a,Su
ld,djfrdaë ù we;af;ao @ wêlrKhg ksis wêlrK n,h mj;skafkao @ wd§
WodyrK fï i`oyd f.kyer mE yel' óg wu;rj isoaêh iïnkaOfhka u;= lrk
m%Yak isoaêuh úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak fõ'
fï iïnkaOfhka isõ,a kvq úOdk ix.%yfha 147 j.ka;sh wjOdkhg ,la l< hq;=h'
ta wkqj kvqjl§ kS;suh yd isoaêuh m%Yak mek ke.=k úg§ kS;sh ms<sn`oj jk
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak u; muKla kvqjg iqÿiaila l< yels nj wêlrKfha u;h
jkafka kï tlS úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak m<uqfjka úi`Èh hq;=h' tfiau ta wkqj kvqjla
wjika lsÍug mjd wêlrKhg n,h we; ^ Cathiravelu v. Dadabhoy & '
“Section 147 expressly enables the courts of first instance to dispose of a case on
issues of law alone, and for that purpose to postpone the settlement of issues of fact
until after the issues of law have been determined.” Held in
Cathiravelu v. Dadabhoy (1912) 15 NLR 339
“An issue of law which goes to the very root of the case should be allowed in the
interests of justice even though it does not arise out of the pleadings.” Dharmadasa
v. Goonawardana (11 C.L.W.)
In Pure Beverages Ltd. v. Shanil Fernando (1997 (3) SLR 202), it was held
that only pure questions of law should be tried as preliminary issues. De Z.
Gunawardena, J. Was of the view that,
“An issue can be tried in limine, that is, as a preliminary issue, only if that
issue is an issue of law and the factual position, from which that issue of
law emaciates, is common-ground. If an issue of law arises in relation to a
fact or factual position in regard to which parties are at variance that issue
cannot and ought not to be tried first, as a preliminary issue of law”
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 4
CORPUS JURIS SL

(People’s Bank vs. Lokuge International Garments Ltd (2011(2) Com. LC
615), held “Section 147 requires court to form an opinion as to whether a
case could be disposed of on the issues of law only and only thereupon
should court on the said issues of law first.”)
flfia fj;;a wod< m%Yakh úi`§u flf¾ idlaIs úuiSug wjYH jkafka kï idlaIs
úuiSfuka miqj jqjo kS;suh úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak úi`Èh yels nj ;SrKh ù ;sfí'
Muthukrishna v. Gomes and Others [1994] 3 Sri LR at page 8: “Judges of
original courts should, as far as practicable, go through the entire trial and answer all
the issues unless they are certain that a pure question of law without the leading of
evidence (apart from formal evidence) can dispose of the case.” S. C. Appeal No.
49/2003 decided on 3.2.2010
147 j.ka;shg wkqj fï wdldrfhka kS;sh ms<sn`oj úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ;SrKh lrk
;=re isoaê ms<sn`oj jk m%Yak úi`§u miqjg ;eìh yel' flfia fj;;a kS;sh
ms<sn`oj jk úi`Èh hq;= m%Yakhla isoaêuh lreKla iu.ska u;= jkafka kï túg
m%Yak folu tlaj úi`Èh hq;= nj ms<s.;a u;hhs'
úúúúiiii````ÈÈÈÈhhhh hhhhqq;;qq;;== == mmmm%%YY%%YYaakkaakk WWWW;;;;aa;;aa;;rrrrjjjjddddoooo uuuu;;;; mmmmuuuuKKKKllllaa aa iiiiSSuuSSuudddd úúúúhhhh hhhhqq;;qq;;==oo==oo@@@@
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ms<snoj idlÉPd lsÍfï§ fuho ie,lsh hq;= m%Yakhls' by;ska
i`oyka lsÍug fhÿk lreKq wkqj W;a;rjdo j, wruqKla jkafka úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak
u;= lsÍuhs' tfiau 146 j.ka;sh wkqj kvq úNd.h wdrïN jkafka W;a;rjdo wdÈh
wkqj úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak u;= lsÍfuka wk;=rejhs' túg W;a;rjdo j,g muKla
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak iSud úh hq;=o hk m%Yakh u;= fõ' fï iïnkaOfhka wjOdkh
fhduq lsÍfï§ 149 j.ka;sh jeo.;a fõ'
ta wkqj ;Skaÿ m%ldYhla lsÍug fmr hï wjia:djl wêlrKh úiska iqÿiq hehs
l,amkd lrk kshuhka u; úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ixfYdaOkh lsÍu fyda w;sf¾l úi`Èh
hq;= m%Yak ke.Su fyda wêlrKh úiska l< yelsh'
149 j.ka;shg wkqj ;Skaÿj m%ldY lsÍug fmr wêlrKhg w;sf¾l úi`Èh hq;=
m%Yak ke.Sug yelshdj we;s nj meyeÈ,sh' kuq;a m%dfhda.slj iuyrla wjia:d j,oS
Èid wêlrKj,§ fï wdldrfhka úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.Su m%;slafIam lrk wdldrh
olakg we;s w;ru ;j;a úgl§ fï wdldrhg úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.Suo olakg
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 5
CORPUS JURIS SL

we;' fuu 149 j.ka;sfha yrh jkafka kvqfõ ;Skaÿj §ug fmr§ tkï úNd.
wjia:djl idlaIs úuiSfï§ jqj;a úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.sh yels njhs' thska fmkS
hkafka W;a;rjdo j,g muKla úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak iSud fkdjk njhs' kuq;a ta
wdldrhg úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.sh yels jkafka th wjika ;SrKhg meñKSu Wfoid
fya;= jkafka kï muKla nj isys ;nd .; hq;= fõ' wêlrKho fï u;h ms<sf.k
we;'
“…a case must be tried upon the issues on which the right decision of the case
appears to the court to depend and it is well settled that the framing of such issues is
not restricted by the pleadings….” Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai 64 NLR 25
(PC) at page 27
"It is not necessary that the new issue should arise on the pleadings. A new issue
could be framed on the evidence led by the parties orally or in the form of
documents. The only restriction is that the Judge in framing a new issue should act
in the interests of justice, which is primarily to ensure the correct decision is given in
the case." Hameed Vs Cassim (1996) 2 SLR, 30.

by;ska olajkakg fhÿk yóâ kvq ;Skaÿj wkqj idlaIslrefjla úiska kvq
úNd.fha§ ,nd fok idlaIs wkqj jqjo wjika ;SrKhla hqla;su;a f,iska ,nd §u
i`oyd bv i,ikafka kï ta iïnkaOfhka jqjo úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak u;= lsÍug
wêlrKhg ndOdjla ke;s nj ñka meyeÈ,s fõ' kuq;a th wêlrKfha wNsu;h
wkqj isÿ jk lreKls ^ C.A. No. 624/2001(F) decided on 03.10.2011&'

flfia fj;;a kvqj wjika úfuka miqj úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak jd¾;d lsÍfï yelshdjla
wêlrKhg fkdue;s njo isys ;nd .; hq;=fõ'

146 ^2& j.ka;sh wkqj úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak u;= lsÍfï§" kvq úNd.h wdrïNfha§
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak jd¾;d fkdlrk nj fmkS hhs' kuq;a tys§o úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak u;=
lrkq ,eìh yelafla wêlrKhg fmkS hk mßÈ kvqfõ ksjerÈ ;SrKh r`od
mj;skafka hehs is;sh yels wdldrhg muKs' thskao meyeÈ,s jkafka úi`Èh hq;=
m%Yak W;a;rjdo j,g muKla iSud fkdúh hq;= njhs'

Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 6
CORPUS JURIS SL

fï wkqj meñKsh yels wjika ks.ukh jkafka úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak W;a;rjdo j,g
muKla iSud fkdjk njhs' tfiau ;Skaÿj ,nd §ug m%:ufhka ´kdu wjia:djl§
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.Sug yelshdj wêlrKhg mj;sk njo ks.ukh l, yel'
kuq;a tfia isÿ l, yelafla th kvqfõ wjika ;SrKhla ,nd §u i`oyd wjYH
jkafka hehs wêlrKhg fmkS hkafka kï muKs'

úúúúiiii````ooookkkkdddd uuuu;;;;== == llllrrrrkkkkqq qq ,,,,nnnnkkkkaaffaaffkkkkaa aa lllljjjjqqrrqqrreeeekkkkaa aa úúúúiiiisskksskkaaooaaoo @@@@

md¾Yjlrejka úiska bÈßm;a lrkq ,nk W;a;rjdo wkqj úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.Su
.re wêlrKfha úksiqrejrhdf.a ld¾hhs' ta nj 146 j.ka;sh wkqj uekúka
meyeÈ,s fõ' kuq;a wo jk úg idudkH wêlrK mßph f,iska isÿjkafka
fomd¾Yjfha kS;S{jreka úiska úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.Suhs' th wêlrKfha
wkque;sh we;sj iïmQ¾Kfhka fyda ixfYdaOko iys;j jd¾;d .; fõ'

“It is quite obvious that the duty of formulating issues is a responsibility of Court,
and it is the duty of court to answer all issues arising in the case.” S. C. Appeal No.
49/2003 decided on 3.2.2010
"It must always be remembered by Judges that the system of civil law that prevails
in our country is confrontational and therefore the jurisdiction of the Judge is
circumscribed and limited to the dispute presented to him for adjudication by the
contesting parties.
Our civil law does not in any way permit the adjudicator or judge the freedom of
the wild ass to go on a voyage of discovery and make a findings as he pleases may
be on what he thinks is right or wrong, moral or immoral or what should be the
correct situation. The adjudicator or Judge is duty bound to determine the dispute

presented to him and his jurisdiction is circumscribed by that dispute and no more.
Though in practice Counsel appearing for the plaintiff or defendant do suggest the
issues, it is the prime responsibility of the Judge to frame issues, this is more so
because it is ultimately the Judge who should make a finding and without clear
understanding of the dispute and the issue that he has to determine it would be a
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 7
CORPUS JURIS SL

most dangerous exercise to embark upon" Pathmawathie v. Jayasekare (1997) 1
Sri LR 248
“It was the duty of the Judge in the first instance to have raised the issues. According
to practice Counsel on both sides were allowed to raise issues, but the moment
objections were raised it was incumbent on the part of the Judge to have made a
proper order either accepting the issues or rejecting the issue or suggesting a fresh
issue. The trial Judge had very conveniently laid liability on the Plaintiff that the
Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had failed to call upon the Court to make an order with
regard to the acceptance/rejection of the issue. The framing of issues is the duty of
Court.” Calendar v. Fernando (2001) 2 Sri LR 355
ffffuuuuffffiiiiaa aa uuuu;;;;== == llllrrrrkkkkqq qq ,,,,nnnnkkkk úúúúiiii````ÈÈÈÈhhhh hhhhqq;;qq;;== == mmmm%%YY%%YYaakkaakkhhhhllllaa aa jjjjdddd¾¾¾¾;;;;ddddffffjjjjkkkkaa aa bbbbjjjj;;;;aa aa llll<<<< yyyyeeeellllssoossoo @@@@
idudkHfhka ms<s.kakd wdldrhg jrla u;= lrkq ,enQ úi`Èh hq;= m%Yakhla
md¾Yjhkag jqjukd jQjdg kvq jd¾;dfjka bj;a lsÍug fkdyels nj wêlrKh
úiska ;SrKh lr ;sfí'
“Where an issue is once framed in a case, the Court has no power to strike it out on
the motion of either party. The issue must be retained to be eventually decided.
A Court can always ex mero motu suo raise a question in a case as to the legality of a
contract sued upon or sought to be enforced.” FERNANDO v. RAMANATHAN 16
NLR 337
úúúúiiii````ÈÈÈÈhhhh hhhhqq;;qq;;== == mmmm%%YY%%YYaakkaakk uuuu;;;;== == llll<<<< yyyyeeeellllss ss wwwwjjjjiiiiaa::aa::ddddjjjj

fmr§ i`oyka l< wdldrhg 146 j.ka;sh wkqj kvq úNd.h werfUkafka úi`Èh hq;=
m%Yak jd¾;d lsÍfuka miqj ùfuka .uH lrkafka kvq úNd.h wdrïNfha§ úi`Èh
hq;= m%Yak u;= l< hq;= njhs' flfia fj;;a úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak W;a;rjdo j,g
muKla mokï fkdùu ksidfjka kvq úNd.fha§ jqjo úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak u;= l<
yels nj fmkS hhs' tfia u;= l< yelafla kvqfõ wjika ;SrKhlg t<öug tlS
úi`okdj fya;= jkafka kï muKs' tfy;a kvqj wjika ùfuka miqj úi`Èh hq;=
m%Yak u;= l< fkdyels nj ;SrKh ù we;'
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 8
CORPUS JURIS SL

flfia fj;;a ú;a;slre úiska W;a;rhla bÈßm;a lr ke;s úgl§ úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak
jd¾;d lsÍfï hq;=lula wêlrKhg fkdue;'

iiiissyyssyyss ss ;;;;nnnndddd ....;;;; hhhhqq;;qq;;== == llllrrrreeeeKKKKqq qq

fuys§ i`oyka l< hq;= hula fõ' isú,a kvqjl § kvq úNd.h isÿ lrkq ,nkafka
wdrïNfha§ jd¾;d .; lrkq ,nk úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak j,g ms<s;=re ,efnk
wdldrfhks' ta wkqj ne,Sfï§ úi`okd hkq bÈßm;a lrKq fõ' tfiau kvqjl§ idlaIs
wd{dmk;g wkqj idlaIs fufyh úh yelafla bÈßm;a fyda wkql+, lreKla
iïnkaOfhka muKs'

“Under Section 5 of the Evidence Ordinance evidence may be given only of facts in
issue and relevant facts. Evidence admitted in disregard of that Section is evidence
improperly admitted and a conviction is liable to be quashed if such evidence has
resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” The Queen v. Sodige Singho Appu (1959) 62
NLR 112

tfiau Res Gestae, Res Inter alios actea, Hearsay rule jeks idlaIs kS;sfha fhfok
uQ,sl uQ,O¾u isys ;nd .; hq;=fõ' flfia fj;;a isú,a kvq j,§ úi`okd u;= lrk
kS;S{jrekag fulS Í;s wu;l fjk wdldrh Wjukd ;rï ksÍlaIKh l< yel'
meyeÈ,sju W;a;rh yd meñKs,a, fo;=ka jrla lshjd n,d ms<s.ekSï ,l=Kq fldg
bkamiqj fkdms<s.kakd fþohka bÈßfha l;srhla .id fyda ,l=Kq fldg ta Tiafia
úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ke.Su olaI kS;S{jrfhlaf.a ld¾hh fkdfõ' we;af;kau úi`Èh
hq;= m%Yak u;= lsÍu hkq l,djls' fulS uQ,sl lreKq wu;l lsÍu ksid ir,j
úi`Èh yels kvq ksñ;a;la fjkqfjka wkjYH f,iska úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak rdYshla u;=
lrkq ,en we;s wjia:d olakg ,efí'

idudkHfhka kvqfõ wjika ;Skaÿj ,nd §fï§ fukau úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak jd¾;d .;
lsÍfï§o m%ldY lrkq ,nkafka úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak jeä .Kklg Tõ hk ms<s;=r
,enqkfyd;a f,isks' ta ksidfjka jeä m%udKhla Tõ hk ms<s;=r ,efnk fia úi`Èh
hq;= m%Yak úYd, f,iska wkjYH wdldrfhka u;= lrk wjia:do olakg ,efí' kuq;a
tfia úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak u;= lsÍu wjYH fkdfõ' úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak 2 la u;= lsÍfuka
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 9
CORPUS JURIS SL

jqjo tlS m%Yak 2 lg idOkSh f,i ms<s;=re ,efí kï tho tlS md¾Yjh fjkqfjka
;SrKhla ,nd .ekSug m%udKj;a fõ'

uuuu;;;;==== llllrrrrkkkkqq qq ,,,,eeeennnnQQ QQ iiiisshhsshh````ttttuuuu úúúúiiii````ooookkkkddddjjjjkkkkaaggaagg mmmmss<<ss<<ss;;ss;;====rrrreeee ,,,,nnnndddd §§§§ffffïïïï hhhhqq;;qq;;==ll==lluuuu

isú,a kvqjl§ u;= lrkq ,enQ úi`Èh hq;= m%Yak ish,a,gu ms<s;=re ,nd Èfï
hq;=lulska wêlrKh ne`§ isà' fï nj wjia:d lSmhl§ ;SrKh ù we;' n,kak
Peiris v. Municipal Council, Galle 65 NLR 555, S. C. Appeal No. 49/2003
decided on 3.2.2010 kvqfõ§ wêlrKh úiska olajkq ,en we;s my; ksÍlaIKh
“It is quite obvious that the duty of formulating issues is a responsibility of
Court, and it is the duty of court to answer all issues arising in the case. As
Lord Devlin observed in Bank of Ceylon v. Chelliah Pillai 64 NLR 25 (PC) at
page 27, “…a case must be tried upon the issues on which the right decision
of the case appears to the court to depend and it is well settled that the
framing of such issues is not restricted by the pleadings….” In Peiris v.
Municipal Council, Galle 65 NLR 555 at page 556, Justice Tambiah
remarked that even where the plaintiff fails to raise a relevant issue, it is the
duty of the judge to raise the necessary issues for a just decision of the case.
A fortiori, it follows that it is the duty of the judge to answer at the end of the
trial all the issues raised in the case.
The only exception to this cardinal principle is found in Section 147 of the
Civil Procedure Code wherein courts have been vested with a degree of
discretion, where it is of the opinion that a particular matter may be decided
on the issues of law alone, to try the issues of law first. In Mohinudeen and
Another v. Lanka Bankuwa, York Street, Colombo 01 [2001] 1 Srl LR, 290 at
299 Hector Yapa, J., cited with approval the following dicta of Wijeyaratna,
J. in Muthukrishna v. Gomes and Others [1994] 3 Sri LR at page 8:
“Judges of original courts should, as far as practicable, go through the
entire trial and answer all the issues unless they are certain that a pure
question of law without the leading of evidence (apart from formal evidence)
can dispose of the case.”(Emphasis added)
Haris Palpola, LL,B -Hons (OUSL)
Attorney-at-Law Page 10