111-NLR-NLR-V-62-PETISINGHO-Appellant-and-RATNAWEERA-Respondent.pdf
672
-BASNAYAKE, C. J.—Pelisingho v. Ratnawee.ro.'
1959Present :Basnayake, C.J., and Sansoni, J.
PETISINGHO, Appellant, and RATNAWEERA, Respondent
C. 240—D. C. (Inty.) Tangalle, 367JP
Partition action—Intervention of parties—Stage after which intervention is notpermissible—Partition A.ct, No. 16 of 1951, ss. 26, 70—Civil Procedure Code,s. 188.
Section 70 of the Partition Act does not empower the Court to add asparty to a partition action a person who claims to be added as such afterjudgment has been pronounced in terms of section 26 of the Act.
Appeal from an order of the District Court, Tangalle.
N. R. M. Daluwatte, for Intervenient-Appellant.
R. Dias, with B. A. R. Candappa, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
April 27, 1959. Basnayake, C.J.—
This is an appeal from the order of the learned District Judge refusingthe appellant’s application to intervene in a partition action. On 15thOctober, 1956, the learned District Judge delivered his judgment, andmade the following order : —
“ Interlocutory decree for 30/10. Schedule of shares for 30/10. ”
On 19th October 1956 the Proctor for the appellant filed a statementof claim and moved that the same be accepted and filed of record.He also moved that the parties disclosed in the statement of claim beadded and that a date be given to notice them. On 23rd October, 1956,the appellant’s Proctor submitted that he was entitled to interveneas the interlocutory decree had not in fact been entered. The respondent’sProctor objected to the addition of the appellant as a party. His objectionwas upheld.
Learned counsel for the appellant relies on section 70 of the PartitionAct, No. 16 of 1951, which provides that the court may at any timebefore interlocutory decree is entered in a partition action add as partyto the action any person who, claiming an interest in the land, appliesto be added as a party to the action.
We do not think that section 70 empowers the Court to add as a partyto the action a person who applies to be added as such after judgmenthas been pronounced in terms of section 26 of the Partition Act.- Thatsection provides that at the conclusion of the trial of a partition action,or on such later date, the Court shall pronounce judgment in open court,
27anhamy v. Ranawana
573
and the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge at the time ofpronouncing it. As soon as may be after the judgment is pronounced,the Court shall enter an interlocutory decree in accordance with thefindings in the judgment, and such decree shall be signed by the Judge.It would appear from section 26 that the entering of the interlocutorydecree is a purely ministerial act and the Judge is bound by that sectionto enter the decree in accordance with the findings in the judgment.No purpose would therefore be served in admitting parties after he haspronounced judgment as required by section 26. The Civil ProcedureCode, which is applicable to proceedings under the Partition Act,recognises the practice that the formal decree is not entered on the sameday that the judgment is delivered when it provides (s. 188) that itshall bear the same date as the judgment, and in the instant case thedecree satisfies that requirement.
We therefore hold that the Court has no power to add a party undersection 70 after the date on which the judgment as required bysection 26 is pronounced.
The learned District Judge is right in refusing the application forintervention.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Sansoni, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.