- Instructing Attorney-at-Law for the petitioner had not tendered notices to the Registry of the Supreme Court along with his application, but had served the motion, which was filed in the Registry directly to the respondent.
- Rules 28(3) and 27(3) quite clearly give specific instructions as to the method in tendering notices to parties. The language used in both Rules clearly shows that the said provisions are mandatory and the notice has to be served through the Registry of the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the motion, which was sent by the learned Instructing Attorney-at-Law for the petitioners to the respondent is not sufficient to satisfy the provisions laid down in Rule 28(3) and therefore this has to be taken as non-compliance with Rule 28(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1990.
- When there has been non-compliance with a mandatory Rule such as Rule 28(3), there is no doubt that this would lead to serious erosion of well established Court procedures maintained by our Courts, throughout several decades and therefore the failure to comply with Rule 28(3) of the Supreme Court Rules would necessarily be fatal.
Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake, J.
Read the full judgement below...