{"id":259181,"date":"2021-12-28T15:00:45","date_gmt":"2021-12-28T09:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=259181"},"modified":"2021-12-28T11:23:09","modified_gmt":"2021-12-28T05:53:09","slug":"sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/","title":{"rendered":"SL SC | &#8220;Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990&#8221;; appeal rejected"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme court of Sri Lanka:<\/strong> The Full Bench of Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, Justice S. Thurairaja, PC and Justice E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, JJ., while rejecting the appeal filed by Defendent-Petitioner upheld the statement of preliminary objection raised by Plaintiff- respondent under Rule (2) and Rule (6) of the Supreme Court Rules 1990 with regard to the maintainability of the instant application.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Plaintiff-Respondent had instituted an action before the District Court of Ratnapura against the Defendant-Petitioner seeking a declaration that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the State land grantee of the land described in the 1st schedule of the Plaint and to eject the Defendant and all under him from the said portion of land and grant damages in a sum of Rs. 50,000 with cost for litigation. The Defendant-Petitioner sought dismissal with a cross claim of Rs. 50,000 with cost for litigation when filing the answer. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned District Judge delivered the Judgment by dismissing the Plaintiff\u2019s action as well as the counter claim by the Defendant-Respondent. In the light of the position taken by the Defendant-Petitioner referred to above, I will now consider the preliminary objection raised by the Plaintiff-Respondent.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When raising the objection on behalf of the Plaintiff-Respondent it was submitted that, material documents have not been annexed with the Application filed before the Supreme Court and as a result, the Defendant-Petitioner has violated Rules (2) and (6) of the Supreme Court Rules 1990, which are mandatory and requires compliance by a petitioner who is invoking the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court while relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in <em>Priyanthi Chandrika Jinadasa v. Pathma Hemamali,<\/em> SC (HC) CALA 99\/2008 {2011] 1 Sri LR 337 held that &#8220;<em>When deciding that an application for Leave to Appeal from the High Court (Civil Appeal) of the Provinces to the Supreme Court should be filed within 42 days from the date of the judgment.&#8221;<\/em> The Court further held that the Defendant-Petitioner had neither reserved any right to file additional documents nor have they adduced any reasons for the default for the failure to exercise due diligence in obtaining such document.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, the Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Plaintiff-Respondent and dismissed the application with no costs.[Kombu Mudiyanselage Thanuja Dilhani v. Suriya Arachchige Inoka Udayangani, SC\/HCCA\/LA 303\/2019, decided on- 17-12-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #993300;\">Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Appearance:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u00a0Tharanga Edirisinghe with Nilusha Silva for the Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Seevali Amitirigala, PC, with Pathum Wijepala for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme court of Sri Lanka: The Full Bench of Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, Justice S. Thurairaja, PC and Justice E. A. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":147611,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[3717],"class_list":["post-259181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-due_diligence"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SL SC | &quot;Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990&quot;; appeal rejected | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SL SC | &quot;Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990&quot;; appeal rejected\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme court of Sri Lanka: The Full Bench of Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, Justice S. Thurairaja, PC and Justice E. A.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-12-28T09:30:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/\",\"name\":\"SL SC | \\\"Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990\\\"; appeal rejected | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-12-28T09:30:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SL SC | &#8220;Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990&#8221;; appeal rejected\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SL SC | \"Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990\"; appeal rejected | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SL SC | \"Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990\"; appeal rejected","og_description":"Supreme court of Sri Lanka: The Full Bench of Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, Justice S. Thurairaja, PC and Justice E. A.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-12-28T09:30:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/","name":"SL SC | \"Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990\"; appeal rejected | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","datePublished":"2021-12-28T09:30:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/sl-sc-due-diligence-necessary-for-exemption-under-supreme-court-rules-1990-appeal-rejected\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SL SC | &#8220;Due Diligence necessary for exemption under Supreme Court Rules, 1990&#8221;; appeal rejected"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":216130,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/26\/ph-hc-litigants-to-exercise-due-diligence-in-pursuing-remedy-when-judgment-and-decree-already-assailed-before-lower-appellate-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":259181,"position":0},"title":"P&#038;H HC | Litigants to exercise due diligence in pursuing remedy when judgment and decree already assailed before lower appellate court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 26, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Amit Rawal J., dismissed the second appeal petition on the ground that there was no substantial question for determination. The regular second appeal was preferred at the instance of the appellant\/defendant against the decretal suit against the injunction order to her to not to interfere\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":204089,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/23\/amendments-that-are-consequential-and-do-not-change-the-nature-of-suit-can-be-allowed-at-any-stage-of-the-suit-before-the-delivery-of-judgment\/","url_meta":{"origin":259181,"position":1},"title":"Amendments that are consequential and do not change the nature of suit, can be allowed at any stage of the suit before the delivery of judgment","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 23, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Patna High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of Prabhat Kumar Jha, J. while hearing a civil miscellaneous petition held that when an amendment sought in a plaint is merely consequential and does not change the nature of the suit, then such an amendment can be allowed at any stage\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":271912,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/19\/it-is-not-for-the-court-to-decide-the-validity-of-the-allotment-of-land-by-the-government-tripura-high-court-dismisses-appeal-in-suit-for-recovery-of-possession-of-land\/","url_meta":{"origin":259181,"position":2},"title":"&#8220;It is not for the court to decide the validity of the allotment of land by the Government&#8221;; Tripura High Court dismisses appeal in suit for recovery of possession of land","author":"Editor","date":"August 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J. dismissed a second appeal which was filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment which dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment passed by Civil Judge ( Senior Division) in connection with declaring the right, title & interest of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tripura High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223736,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/01\/sl-sc-%e2%94%82-where-there-is-a-variation-between-description-and-extent-in-a-deed-description-will-prevail\/","url_meta":{"origin":259181,"position":3},"title":"SL SC | Where there is a variation between description and extent in a deed, description will prevail","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: A Full Bench of Prasanna Jayawardena, L.T.B. Dehideniya and S. Thurairaja, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed on being aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court which had allowed the appeal of the Defendant-Respondents. The Plaintiff-Appellant had instituted action in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265383,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/13\/daughters-also-entitled-for-getting-equal-share-in-the-property-inherited-by-their-parents\/","url_meta":{"origin":259181,"position":4},"title":"Chh HC | Daughters also entitled for getting equal share in the property inherited by their parents; Court reiterates and allows appeal deciding validity of will","author":"Editor","date":"April 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. allowed an appeal filed by the defendants setting aside the judgment and decree by the Trial Court whereby trial Court had decreed the suit filed by plaintiff\/respondent 1, dismissed the counter claim filed by appellants\/defendants 1 to 3. The appellants\/defendants are all residents\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":254627,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/","url_meta":{"origin":259181,"position":5},"title":"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement","author":"Editor","date":"September 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: V.G.Arun, J., held that no amendment can be allowed in written statement where it seeks to change former admissions.\u00a0 The Bench stated, \u00a0\u201cEven the most liberal approach towards amendment of written statements will not justify the approval of such an application.\u201d Background The petitioner was the defendant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259181\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/147611"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}