Sec. 150 of CPC Prevents Parties from Introducing Materially Different Claims at Appeal
SC Rejects New Prescriptive Title Claim at Appeal Stage
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court addressed an issue regarding a Defendant’s attempt to claim prescriptive title at the appellate stage. The Court noted that the Defendant had neither claimed such title in his answer nor raised the issue during the original District Court proceedings. The District Judge also did not discuss this aspect in the initial judgment.
The Supreme Court found that the question of prescriptive title only emerged during the appeal, initiated by the Defendant, which was deemed unacceptable. The Court referred to Explanation 2 of Section 150 of the Civil Procedure Code, which prohibits parties from advancing a case that is materially different from what was presented at trial.
“……we observe that the Defendant has neither claimed such prescriptive title to this property in his answer nor raised any issue in that regard. We also observe that the learned District Judge has also not discussed the aspect of prescriptive title in his Judgment. Thus, it appears that the question whether the Defendant has succeeded in establishing a prescriptive title to this property, has only popped up in the appeal before the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeals, at the instance of the Defendant. This is something unacceptable. Explanation 2 to Section 150 of the Civil Procedure Code is a clear bar for a party to advance a case that is materially different from that advanced in the original Court….”
“….This provision has been interpreted by Chief Justice G. P. S. de Silva in the case of Candappa nee Bastian v Ponnambalampillai [1993] 1 SLR 184 at 189. The relevant excerpt from the above Judgement is reproduced below. “Thus it is seen that the position taken up in appeal for the first time was not in accord with the case as presented by the defendant in the District Court. It is well to bear in mind the provisions of explanation 2 to section 150 of the Civil Procedure Code. It reads thus: “The case enunciated must reasonably accord with the party’s pleading, i.e. plaint or answer, as the case may be. And no party can be allowed to make at the trial a case materially different from that which he has placed on record, and which his opponent is prepared to meet ……” A fortiori, a party cannot be permitted to present in appeal a case different from the case presented before the trial Court except in accordance with the principles laid down by the House of Lords in The Tasmania [(1890) 15 App. Cases 233] and followed by Dias, J. in Setha v. Weerakoon [49 NLR 225 at 228, 229].” – Justice P. Padman Surasena
CASE NO: SC/ APPEAL/124/2014 [Decided on 19/07/2024]
BEFORE : P. PADMAN SURASENA, J. ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J. & MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J.
