Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1984%20Vol.1-P98&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 09:02:10+00:00

Document:
L .H. DE ALWIS, J. AND MOONEMALLE, J.
14. 17, 18, 1983, DECEMBER8 and 9, 1983.
restore premises to former condition.
Contempt Of Court, sections 792 and 793 Of Civil Procedure Code read with Article 105(3) Of the Constitution.
he made certain, structural alterations to the roof and parts of the building.
On 9.2.82, the learned District Judge issued notice of the interim injunction and summons on the 1st respondent.
1st respondent had made in the premises on 4.2.82 had been removed and the roof replaced.
entered an interim Injunction in terms of paragraph 5 of the prayer to the plaint.
Civil Procedure Code to deal with the respondents for contempt of Court.
of the respondents do not constitute an abuse of the process of Court and do not amount to a contempt.
(1)Gnanamuttu v. Chairman U. C. Bandarawela, (1942) 43 N, L. R. 366.
(2)Silva v. Appuhamy, (1899) 4 N.L.R. 178.
(5)Joseph v. Asst. Excise Commissioner and others, A.I.R.  Travancore - 145.
(6)Ouseph Ouseph v. Minister for Food Travancore Cochin, A.I.R. (38)  Tra. -Cochin, 226 (2).
(8)A. G. v. Times Newspapers Ltd. 3All E.R. 54 H.L.
(9)Raymond v. Honey  2All E.R 1084.
(10)Re Brambievale Ltd., 3All ER- at 1064.
Court Minutes of July 1983.
APPLICATION under sections 792 and 793 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 105 (3) of the Constitution.
H. W Jayewardene, Q.C,, with A. K. Premadasa and D. S. Wijesinghe for the petitioner.
Dr. Colvin R. de Silva with M. Mousoof Deenfor the respondents.
observations at the premises, ordered the 2nd respondent who was present, to stop further work.
erecting, any unauthorized structure thereon until the final determination of the action (vide plaint P 1).
Council of Matale without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner.
On 12.2.82, the petitioner made an application to Court for the issue of a commission toLicensedSurveyorandValuerS.
southern edge of the wall had been raised by 2 1/2 feet.
refusing to attend, as the matter was sub judice.
removed and the roof replaced.
the prayer to the petition I shall reproduce in toto the contents of the summons that was issued by this CourtinFormNo.
132 under section 793 Of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides for summary, procedure in respect of contempt of Court.
determination is whether the conduct of the respondents on 1.3.82 was in contempt of Court.
the acts of contempt alleged to have been committed, by them and have not misled or prejudiced them.
demolition of the premises had taken place on 1.3.82.
I will deal with presently.
which are omitted in, count (3).
(1)Demolish and reduce by 2 1/2 feet the height of the southern wall.
(2)Demolish and reduce by 2 1/2 feet, the central pillar.
(3)Demolish and remove the 1 foot high and 24 feet long curb wall Constructed by the respondents.
(4)Replace the front portion of the roof of the premises.
roof and the door frames with new timber.
in respect of the said premises till such time as the Court made an Orderand/ or delivered judgement in respect thereof.
The application for an interim injunction in terms of paragraph(5) of the prayer to the plaint, was allowed only on30.3.82.
brought. There can therefore be no disobedience to any interim injunction issued by Court, on that day.
the trial of the main action.
The authorities relied on by learned Queen's Counsel however do not support his contention. In Gnanamuttu v. ChairmanU.C.
once since he had endeavoured to anticipate the action of the Court by hurryingonhisbuilding.SeealsoVanJoelv.
quo ante in the manner and to the extent possible ".
mandatory order to undo what the defendant had done hurriedly.
of justice and punishable as a contempt of Court.
established Courts of criminal and civil jurisdiction for the determinationofdisputesastotheirlegalrightsand.
the requirement that a. citizen should have direct access to the Courts and the Governor was therefore guilty of contempt.
equally consistent possibilities open to Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonabledoubt".
administration of justice in the circumstances of this case.
ask the District Court for permission to restore the promises to their former state and to replace the roof.
if not to a better condition. These acts did not affect the dignity or authority of the Court.
oppressive ". The acts of the respondents committed on 1.3.82 do not therefore constitute an abuse of the process of Court.
meaningless in the present day". The distinction between criminal and civil Contempt is no longer prevalent today.
Hewamanne v. Manik de Silva and the The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd. (11). His Lordship was on further to say."
which were committed by the respondents on 1.3.82, do not constitute a contempt of the District Court of Matale.
I accordingly dismiss the charges laid against the respondents and acquit them.
any action he may deem necessary to take in the matter.

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