037-NLR-NLR-V-11-DAVITH-APPUHAMY-v.-PERERA.pdf
( ISO )
1908.May It,
Present: Mr. Justice Qrenier.
DAVITH APPUHAMY. v. PERERA.
C. R., Ratnapura, 9,185.
Court of Requests, jurisdiction of—Mortgage action—Civil Procedure Code,s. 9—Ordinance No. 12 of 1895, s. 4.
A Court of Requests has no jurisdiction to entertain an actionon a bond mortgaging immovable property, unless Buch propertyis situate within the judisdiction of such Court.r
A PPEAL by the defendant from a judgment of .the Commissionerof Requests (Allan Beven, Esq.).
The facts material to the report sufficiently appear in the judg-ment.
B. F, de Silva, for .the defendant, appellant.
H. A. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vvlt.
i (1891) 2 C. L. R. 79.
( 151 )
May 14, 1908. Grenier A.J.—
This is an action on a mortgage bond executed by the defendantsin favour of the plaintiff in Ratnapura. The defendants are resi-dent out of the jurisdiction of the Court, and the property mortgagedis situated in Kalutara. The defendants contended, both in theCourt below and in appeal, that the Court of Requests of Ratnapurahad no jurisdiction to entertain this action, on the ground that theprovisions of section 4 of Ordinance No. 12 of 1895 clearly contem-plated that an action of this character should be brought in theCourt within whose territorial jurisdiction the property hypothe-cated is situated. Whatever may have been the reason for theenactment, I must give effect to it. Section 9 of the Civil ProcedureCode, in view of the later enactment, was wrongly held by theCommissioner to apply to this case. Counsel were unable to referme to any authorities, and I must merely decide the question ona plain construction of section 4 of Ordinance No. 12 of 1895.
The appeal is allowed with costs.
Appeal allowed.
+
1908.
May 14.