Country Director, International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (known as World Bank) (Petitioner)
Ismat Zerin Khan (Respondent)
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J
April 6, 2009.
Rafique-ul-Huq, Senior Advocate instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner.
AJ Mohammad Ali, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record- For the Respondent.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1199 of 2008.
(From the judgment and order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1431 of 2008).
Md. Joynul Abedin J. – This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 5.6.2008 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1431 of 2008 discharging the rule.
2. The respondent as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 225 of 2001 in the First Court of Assistant Judge, Dhaka and it was subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 92 of 2003 on transfer in the Second Court of Assistant Judge, Dhaka for declaration that the non-confirmation of her appointment and termination of her employment by the defendant No. 2 is illegal and not binding upon her and that she is entitled to reinstatement to her post. Subsequently the plaint was amended to include a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay her emolument.
3. Pursuant to such amendment, the defendant No. 2 filed an application in the trial court for directing the plaintiff to revalue the suit on the basis of amended plaint. The learned Assistant Judge thereupon by order dated 6th May, 2007 directed the plaintiff to revalue the suit in the light of the amendment. Accordingly, the plaintiff revalued the suit for mandatory injunction at Tk. 1000/- and paid court fees accordingly. The defendant opposes the revaluation of the suit on the plea that there is objective standard of valuation for the relief and the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fees on the basis of her salaries. The learned Assistant judge turned down the objection observing that the plaintiff did not pray for any specified amount of salary by way of amendment to the plaint and therefore no objective standard of valuation was ascertainable for the relief claimed.
4. The defendant petitioner filed Civil Revision No.33 of 2007 in the court of the District Judge challenging the said order of the learned Assistant Judge. The learned Additional District Judge 7th Court, Dhaka thereafter on transfer heard the said revision petition on 5.3.2008 and maintained the order of the learned Assistant Judge. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the plaintiff respondent sought for two declarations which have no objective standard of valuation and that the learned Assistant Judge committed no error of law in not acceding to the objection of the defendant petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the defendant petitioner moved the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1431 of 2008. A Single Bench of the High Court Division after hearing discharged the rule on the finding that “there is no objective standard of valuation available in the reliefs claimed.” Hence this civil petition for leave to appeal by the petitioner.
6. Mr. Rafique-ul-Huq, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court Division acted illegally in not directing the plaintiff respondent to revalue the suit in its correct perspective for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. He further submits that the High Court Division committed illegality in holding that there is no objective standard of valuation of the suit having regard to the nature of the prayer sought by way of amendment to the plaint seeking relief for recovery of arrear salaries by way of mandatory injunction.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the connected papers including the impugned judgment. We do not find any substance in the contentions raised. The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the same.
The petition in accordingly dismissed.
Source: 18 BLT (AD) (2010) 1