021-SLLR-SLLR-2003-1-RATNAYAKE-v.-DASSANAYAKE.pdf
170
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2003] 1 Sri L.R
RATNAYAKE
v.DASSANAYAKE
SUPREME COURTFERNANDO, J.
EDUSSURIYA, J. ANDDE SILVA, J.
SC APPEAL 47/2002CA 240/89(F)
DC KULIYAPITIYA CASE NO. 6741/M4th AND 29th OCTOBER, 2002
Defamation – Circumstances justifying a judgment for defamation when theplaintiff stated that the cause of action was malicious prosecution.
The plaintiff respondent stated that his cause of action was malicious prose-cution. But in the amended plaint he pleaded facts applicable to defamation as
sc
Ratnayake v Dassanayake(Fernando. J.)
171
well as additional facts relevant to malicious prosecution. At the trial the plain-tiff suggested issues relevant to defamation pure and simple. The trial judgegave judgment for the plaintiff on the basis defamation had been established.
Held : The trial judge did not err in granting relief for defamation.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Case referred to:
D'odwell v John – (1915) 18 NLR 133.139R. Chula Bandara for appellantPlaintiff-respondent absent and unrepresented.
Cur.adv.vult
October 29, 2002FERNANDO, J.
The plaintiff-respondent was absent and unrepresented.However, an attorney-at-law has filed a proxy on his behalf and hastendered written submissions on 04.10.2002. We accordinglydecided to take up this matter for hearing.
The question of law on which special leave was granted inthis case was whether it was open to the District Court “to grantrelief for defamation when the plaintiff’s stated cause of action wasmalicious prosecution”
A scrutiny of the amended plaint reveals that the plaintiff hadpleaded all the facts which under the law applicable gave rise to acause of action (i.e. for defamation) as well as additional facts rel-evant to a cause of action for malicious prosecution. Thus the plain-tiff pleaded that a complaint made by the defendant to the policewas untrue, malicious, defamatory and injurious to his reputation,that in consequence he was arrested, remanded and prosecutedetc. It was not necessary to label the action as belonging to a par-ticular class. (See Dodwell v John (1)).
172
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2003] 1 Sri L.R
At the trial when issues were framed, the plaintiff suggestedissues relevant to defamation pure and simple. That he was enti-tled to do. In any event, the defendant’s counsel did not object tothose issues or suggest any counter issues. After trial, the trialJudge gave judgment for the plaintiff on the basis that defamationhad been established. He did not err in granting relief for defama-tion.
The appeal is dismissed, but without costs as the plaintiff didnot appear either at the stage of leave or at the hearing.
EDUSSURIYA, J.-I agree.
DE SILVA, J.-I agree.
Appeal dismissed.