Dr. Md. Abdul Jalil Sarder
MM Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Abdul Matin J
January 8, 2008.
Md. Zahedul Bari, Advocate, instructed by Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Not represented-the Respondent.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 585 of 2006.
(From the judgment and order dated 02.02.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.2196 of 1990.)
M.M. Ruhul Amin J. – This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.2196 of 1990 discharging the Rule.
2. Short facts are that the plaintiff instituted Other Class Suit No.45 of 1986 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Gaibandha stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff as M.B.B.S. doctor while was doing internship in Rangpur Medical College Hospital, he went on a pleasure trip with his friend Dr. Azizul Hoque on 07.10.1985 to Nilfamari Town. At Nilfamari they went to a house where the father of the defendant along with others told him to marry the defendant. The plaintiff refused the proposal but he was put under fear of death and finding no way out he had to put his signature on the alleged Nikahnama and the alleged marriage was not consummated.
3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that she was a Senior Staff Nurse serving in the Rangpur Medical College Hospital and the petitioner gave proposal for marriage with her through one of his friends and the said marriage was a legal one which took place with the consent of both of them and the same was duly consummated and a son was born out of that wedlock.
4. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal being Title Appeal No.194 of 1989 the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The High Court Division after hearing the parties discharged the Rule as aforesaid.
5. We have heard Mr. Md. Zahedul Bari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
6. The High Court Division held that admittedly the marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant on 08.10.1985 and the Kabinnama was registered. The High Court Division further held that the Kabinnama was not obtained by influence. The High Court Division also held that the trial Court and the appellate Court concurrently held that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that he put his signature under threat and coercion on the Kabinnama. The High Court Division further held that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below are based on the appreciation of the evidence on record and accordingly declined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below.
7. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision.
The petition is dismissed.
Source:VI ADC (2009) 427