Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1997%20Vol.1-P208&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:43:11+00:00

Document:
successor for a deceased applicant - Section 71 of the Finance Act.
Quaere, whether a testate heir who is entitled to apply for substitution has a preferent right over the "specified heirs".
2. Kanagasabapathy v People's Bank S.C. Appeal No. 124/75 S.C. Minutes 27 August 1976.
3.Wickramasinghe v Sri Lanka State Trading Corporation (1994) 3 Sri L.R. 41.
4. Ceylon Estates Staffs Union v. Land Reform Commission (1987) 2 Sri L.R. 203,207-8.
5. Amarajeewa v. University of Colombo (1993) 2 Sri L. R. 327.
6. Muhandiram v. Salam (1947) 49 N.L.R. 80.
7.Hevavitharane v De Silva (1961) 63 N.L.R. 68, 72.
8. Narasingh Das v. Mangal Dubey (1983) 5 Allahabad 163, 172.
9. Setha v. Weerakoon (1948) 49 N.L.R. 225.
10. Saravanamuttu v Solamuttu (1924) 26 N.L.R. 385,390.
11. Wickremabandu v. Herat (1990) 2 Sri L.R. 348, 361.
12. Shanmugam v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents (1962) 64 N.L.R. 29, 33.
13. Jailabdeen v. Danina Umma (1962) 64 N.L.R. 419, 422.
14. Wijewardene v. People's Bank, S.C. Appeal No. 3/80 S.C. Minutes 20 May, 1981.
Walter Perera with Nimal Ranmukhaarachchi for appellants.
W D. Weeraratne for 3rd respondent.
In S.C. Appeal No. 76/96.
P. A. D. Samarasekara, P.C. with Jayantha de Almeida Gunaratne and Kirthi Sri Gunawardene for Appellant.
S. Fernando, S.C. for 1st respondent.
Bimal Rajapakse for 2nd respondent.
No. 33 of 1968 and Law No. 16 of 1973.
shall not be called in question in any court."
proceed notwithstanding the death of the applicant.
challenged because of the ouster clause in section 71(3), read with section 22 of the Interpretation Ordinance.
CAM 10.6.94) that substitution cannot be effected, the Bank had dismissed the application for redemption.
Since both appeals involved the interpretation of the same provisions, they were heard together.
testate heir was also entitled to substitution.
allowed, and only after hearing the person substituted.
event there could be no substitution of the appellant, who did not fall into the class of "specified heirs".
provision in the mortgage: see Halsbury, Laws of England's, 4th ed, vol. 32, para 407).
intent to make the right personal.
upon death after an application was filed, as they did before it was filed.
applications, they too would fail for the same reason. However, if all three applicants haddied,their"specifiedheirs"
the dispute to be heard and determined inter partes, and the other which would either prevent it beingdecided,orresult.
citing Narasingh Das v. Mangal Dubey (8).
fair procedure which all Tribunals should respect.
before the action is heard, to confer upon his executor all the rights which he himself would havehadifhehadlived."
survives in favour of or against the representative of the estate of the deceased."
As I have noted earlier, under the Industrial Disputes Act too substitution is possible.
proceedings were not capable of devolving upon his legal representatives.
in subsection (2) are satisfied, and the fact that the Bank has a discretion hasbeenrecognisedinEmaliyanaPererav.
question in any court, it was contended that the effect of section 22 of the Interpretation Ordinance, as amended by ActNo.
exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 140.
Constitution, shall, mutatis mutandis, and except as otherwise expressly provided in the Constitution, continue in force."
applicability arises directly from the language used and not by inference from it."
specific mention of the ouster clause in section 8, the language used is broad enough to confer anunfetteredjurisdiction.
to review, even on grounds excluded by the ouster clause.
provisions of Article 138 which is subject to "any law".
to distinct preliminary or incidental matters, such as the substitution of parties.
circumstances, the dismissal (in SC Appeal 20/96) of the 1st Appellant's application was wrong in law.
preferent right over the "specified heirs", as the latter were neither noticed nor heard.
In each appeal I direct the Bank to pay appellants sum of . 5,000/- as costs in both Courts.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.