M. CAREEM AND TWO OTHERS VS. INDUSTRIAL FINANCE LIMITED

• Jurisdiction: Sri Lanka
• Case Number: 2011SCOA895C1995Y
• Citation: 2011SCOA895C1995Y
• Date: 24 May 2011
• Court: Court of Appeal (Sri Lanka)
• Type of Document: Unreported judgment

1

M. Careem and two others

Vs.

Industrial Finance Limited

Case No. CA.895/95(F)

District Court of Colombo 10521/MR

Industrial Finance Limited
63, Dr. C.W.W. Kannangara Mawatha
Colombo 07.

PLAINTIFF
Vs

1. M. Careem
No. 37, Wijaya Road
Colombo 06.

And 22/3, Mallika Road,
Colombo 06.

2. A.C.N. Mohamed
No. 34, Daya Road,
Colombo 06.

3. A.R.S. Hameed
14, Paratha Road,
Gorakana,
Moratuwa.

DEFENDANTS
AND

1. M. Careem
No. 37, Wijaya Road
Colombo 06.

And 22/3, Mallika Road,
Colombo 06.

2. A.C.N. Mohamed
No. 34, Daya Road,
Colombo 06.

2

3. A.R.S. Hameed
14, Paratha Road,
Gorakana,
Moratuwa.

DEFENDANT APPELLANTS
Vs

Industrial Finance Limited
63, Dr. C.W.W. Kannangara Mawatha
Colombo 07.

PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT

3

Before : Rohini Marasinghe J

Counsel : Plaintiff/Respondent absent and unrepresented.
Pavithra Welivita for Defendant/Appellant

Written Submissions : 22-11-2010 (Appellant)

Judgment : 24-5-2011

The Plaintiff/Respondent had instituted action In the District Court to recover money due on an Agreement dated 13-5-1986 marked as "A". The defendant had filed answer and accepted that he had entered in to the said Agreement. After trial the judgment was held in favour of the plaintiff. This appeal is against that judgment.

The main contention of the appellant was that the Agreement referred to as "A" did not contain an interest rate. The learned trial judge had addressed this point. He had correctly stated the main issue in the case was whether the parties have entered into a contract and whether any party had breached that contract. According to the trial judge's finding the defendant had continued to pay on the Agreement which was marked as P3 at the trial. The Agreement P3 was based on the facts agreed upon by the parties at the time

4

of the Agreement "A". The only differences between these 2 Agreements were that the Agreement "A" in clause 8 did not refer to the rate of interest, and it did not have the registered number of the vehicle which was the subject matter of this Agreement. However, the document P3 contained the interest rate. The defendant was aware of the interest rate. The defendant continued to pay for several months. The ledger book reflects the said payments. Therefore, having paid on the Agreement marked as P3 for several months the defendant cannot now allege that the Agreement was a fraudulent Agreement. These rates interest were known by the defendant when he placed his signature at clause 8 of P3....