Court refuses to dismiss amended plaint of Brook Teas against eight brokers

By T. Farook Thajudeen

Colombo Civil High Court overruled an objection raised by the defendants in case to dismiss the amended plaint of  Brook Teas (Pvt.) Ltd., as the amended plaint was filed on the order of the court and if the amended plaint was dismiss the court will not be able to come to a decision what  the next step be.

This was observed by Civil High Court Judge P. W. D. C.  Jayathilaka in a case filed by Brook Teas (Pvt.) Limited against eight members of the Colombo Brokers Association (CBA) on an alleged violation of an agreement between the tea exporter and the CBA for which the exporter had sued Rs. 352,000,000 as damages.

In giving the order, the judge observed that the plaintiff on 5 June, 2009 had filed the action against eight defendants including John Keels PLC and on considering the submissions made by John Keels PLC on 10 June, 2014 the court ordered the plaintiff to cite the defendants jointly as the cause of action had caused due to the joint action of all the defendants.

Accordingly the plaintiff had filed the amended plaint on 25 October, 2010. In prima facia it appears to be an exceeding of the limits granted by the Act of Civil Procedure Code.

However the amended plaint was filed on the order of the court. If the amended plaint is dismissed the court will not be able to decide what the next step is and therefore the defendants pleading for the dismissal of the amended plaint was refused.

The judge allowed the defendants to take any objection if so on the amended plaint during the trial.The plaintiff sued John Keells PLC, Lanka Commodity Brokers Limited, Asia Siyaka Commodities (Pvt.) Limited, Bartleet Produce Marketing (Pvt.) Limited and Mercantile Produce Brokers (Pvt.) Limited and three other Directors of the CDA alleging  that the defendants did not trade in the manner set out by the Colombo Tea Traders Association (CAAT).

The plaintiff claim that the defendants unlawfully breached the terms of the concerned agreement and treated the plaintiff as a defaulter and debarred from trading at the Colombo Auctions.

The plaintiff submitted that by refusal to sell tea to the plaintiff being unable to carry on business since the plaintiffs customers business based on uninterrupted supply of tea to them.

The plaintiff contended that a gross loss and heavy financial loss had incurred to the plaintiff due to these arbitrary actions of the defendants and pleaded to order the defendants to pay the plaintiff Rs. 352,000,000 as damages.