News
Damage caused to ex-judge’s house: Construction company’s bid to crush enjoining order fails
View(s):Colombo District Judge Amali Ranaweera this week turned down objections on extending an enjoining order against a construction company which has allegedly caused damage to a house located close to its construction site in Narahenpita.
In this case, former Court of Appeal President, Justice Upali de Z Goonewardena, and his wife, former Professor of Microbiology of the University of Kelaniya, and their son have filed action against Nawaloka Construction Ltd and one of its directors.
The complaint was that the construction of a three storied house had caused extensive damage to the house Justice Goonewardena’s family had built and lived for over 15 years without any hindrance.
The application made by Romesh de Silva, PC, opposing the enjoining order issued by the District Court was refused by the judge.
Upul Jayasuriya, PC with Sandamal Rajapaksha and Sampath Wijewardena appearing for the plaintiffs has obtained the enjoining order.
Mr de Silva’s objections to the enjoining order was based on a claim that Justice Goonewardena’s house, though built nearly 15 years ago, has not been built on a solid foundation or using proper construction materials. He argued that, therefore, Nawaloka Construction Ltd building a house next door could not be blamed for the poor quality construction of Justice Goonewardena’s house.
Mr Jayasuriya refuted the contention of Mr Silva and submitted to court that such an argument held no water as Justice Goonewardena’s house had survived for 15 years with no cracks.
Mr Jayasuriya also pointed out that Mr de Silva had not drawn the attention of court to the NBRO report filed by the plaintiffs. He said a further report issued by Geotech Ltd was relied on by the defendants.
Mr Jayasuriya pointed out that, as recommended by the defendant’s own engineers, the three metres of weak alluvial soil had not been removed by the defendants in building the new construction.
The District Judge refused the objections of the defendants and extended the enjoining order till June 19 and ordered the parties to file answers.