by Chitra Weerarathne
Rienzie Arsecularatne Additional Solicitor General, PC has alleged in an affidavit filed recently in the Supreme Court, that he is now aware that Justice Dheeraratne's daughter and son-in-law are both doctors and which fact Arsecularatne verily believes should have been disclosed by Justice Dheeraratne, prior to taking up the hearing of the appeal filed in the Supreme Court by Professor Priyani Soysa, Paediatrician.

This affidavit of Arsecularatne is in connection with the Revision application filed by him in the Supreme Court seeking to revise a judgement of December 12, 2000, where by Professor Soysa was declared negligent in not ordering a CT scan on late Suhani Arsecularatne, but since court held that that was not the causation of the death the original plaintiff Arsecularatne, was ordered to pay costs of the case to Professor Soysa.

Arsecularatne in his Revision application in respect of this judgement said that the conclusion of the judgement was inconsistent with the body of the judgement.

Professor Priyani Soysa filed a statement of objections in the Supreme Court, objecting to the hearing of this Revision application seeking a review on a judgement of the Supreme Court.

Professor Soysa's statement of objections said that on the assumption that Arsecularatne is seeking to invoke the inherent powers of the Supreme Court, the application of Arsecularatne does not disclose any ground or circumstances, to warrant the exercise of that extraordinary jurisdiction, exercised in exceptional cases. The case does not come within the scope of the inherent powers of the court. (Jeyaraj Fernandopulle vs De Silva). Professor Soysa had also said that the whole basis of Arsecularatne's application for relief proceeds upon a legal misconception arising from a failure to distinguish actionable negligence, from negligence which does not give rise to a cause of action. The court has specifically held that the plaintiff Arsecularatne, has failed to prove that Professor Soysa's omission to order a CT-scan caused or contributed to the death of the child on June 19, 1992.

Professor Soysa, in Paragraph 10, of her statement of objections said that several members of the present Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who were at one time colleagues and close associates of Arsecularatne in the Department of the Attorney General have on representations made or otherwise, abstained from participating in the hearing of this appeal in compliance with the principles of Natural Justice which require not only that justice be done, but that it be seen to be done. Professor Soysa had said that matters mentioned herein be considered in nominating a Bench of judges in the event of the application being listed for hearing in open court.

Professor Soysa had requested the court to reject in liminae the application for a revision by Arsecularatne, or in the alternative if it is to be heard in open court the matters mentioned above be considered in constituting the Bench.

Arsecularatne in his affidavit had denied the allegation made to the effect that, the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court are close associates of his.

At the time Professor Soysa's appeal was heard, the judge closest to Arsecularatne in seniority amongst those who served in the Attorney General's Department was Justice Ismail, who heard the case and to whom there was no objection and who delivered the judgement in the case, on Professor Soysa's case, where Professor Soysa had appealed to the Supreme Court, against a judgement of the Court of Appeal, which held that Professor Soysa was negligent in treating the late Suhani, daughter of Arsecularatne and ordered damages to Arsecularatne.