Colombo court calls for objection in “Sangaree case”
[TamilNet, Saturday, 27 December 2003, 14:39 GMT]
The Colombo District Court Saturday called for objection through press advertisement published in three daily newspapers, Daily News, Thinakaran and Dinamina to the plaint filed by Mr. V.Anandasangaree against the Secretary General and Senior Vice President of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) Mr.R.Sampanthan and Mr.Joseph Pararajasingham respectively for summoning the party central committee meeting without his written approval, legal sources said.
The Registrar of Colombo District Courts has signed the court notice.
The full text of the court notice follows:
“ The plaintiff Mr. Weerasingham Anandasangaree representing the TULF and on behalf of the TULF has made a request to this court on December 17 under the clause 16 of Civil Procedure Code to carry on this case against the defendants Mr.Sampanthan and Mr.Jospeh Pararajasingham.
“ If there is any objection to the said request, and if any one objects for including the both defendants to this case as per the complaint, the said objection has be to be lodged at or before 9.30 a.m. on 31st December 2003 in writing or else the said plaintiff as mentioned in the complaint will be included in this case as the plaintiff-petitioner and further steps will be taken.”
The Colombo Additional District Judge Mr. Lalith Jayasuriya on December 17 issued an enjoining order preventing Mr.Sampanthan and Mr.Joseph Pararajasingham from holding the central committee meeting of TULF on December 21 at Amparai and put off further inquiry into the plaint for December 31.
Mr.Anandasangaree has cited Mr.Sampanthan and Mr.Joseph Pararajasingham as the first and second defendants in his plaint. Mr.Anandasangaree said in his plaint that the party general secretary had summoned a central committee meeting on November 30 and at this meeting, which was chaired by him, the defendants had attempted to move a vote of no confidence against him. At that point the plaintiff had put off the meeting indefinitely ruling that the central committee has no power to move a no confidence motion. Later the two defendants had taken steps to hold another meeting without consulting him at Amparai on December 21.
The application had sought the court to order preventing the defendants holding such meeting at Amparai or at any other place and to prohibit the defendants taking any decision without his written approval.
However no such TULF central committee was held in Ampara as stated in the plaint, Tamil sources said.