Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Abdus Salam

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner and others,Satkhira…………………….Petitioners

-Vs-

Md. Abdus Salam………………………. Respondent.

Md. Ruhul Amin CJ

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Judgment  Dated: 18th June 2006

The Civil Procedure, Order 39, Rule 1, Section 151

Prayer for temporary injunction by filing a written objection denying plaintiffs possession in the suit land ………………….(3)

The petitioner, being aggrieved preferred a revisional appliation before the High Court Division which was summarily dismissed on the findings that the said order of status-quo is operating since 24.6.2001, that is, more than one year and there is no new circumstances so as to disturb the said order of status-quo and moreover, there is no sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the revision application so as to condone the delay. The High Court Division, in the above facts and circumstances, did not exercise its discretion for condoning the delay……………………. (3)

A.H.M. Mushfiqur Rahman, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by B. Hossain, Advocate-on-Record …………….For the Petitioners.

Respondent……………………………….. Not represented.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 824 of 2004

(From the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2002 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Order No. 7226 of 2002).

JUDGMENT

Md. Tafazzul Islam J : Delay of 29 days is condoned.

2. This petition for leave to appeal, at the instance of the defendants, is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2002 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Order No. 7226 of 2002 summarily rejecting the revisional application.

3. The respondent Nos. 1-13, as plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 27 of 1995 in the Court

of Assistant Judge, Satkhira for declaration of title to the suit land impleading the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos. 14-20 as defendants stating that they are in

possession of the suit land and in the above suit they also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating disturbance with their peaceful possession in the suit land or evicting the plaintiffs therefrom. The defendant-petitioners opposed the above prayer for temporary injunction by filing a written objection denying plaintiffs possession in the suit land and claiming that the suit land is government khas land and the same is known as Udar Box Khal and that there is no residential house in suit land and that the suit land is under the control of the Ministry of

Land and the government has every right to lease out the same as Jalmahal. The learned Assistant Judge by his judgment and order dated 13.10.97 rejected the application for temporary injunction. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), Satkhira, by judgment and order dated 24.6.2001 allowed the application for temporary injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the leasing out of the suit land. The petitioner, being aggrieved preferred a revisional appliation

before the High Court Division which was summarily dismissed on the findings that

the said order of status-quo is operating since 24.6.2001, that is, more than one year and there is no new circumstances so as to disturb the said order of status-quo and moreover, there is no sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the revision application so as to condone the delay. The High Court Division, in the above facts and circumstances, did not exercise its discretion for condoning the delay.

4. As it appears the High Court Division, on assigning reason, did not condone the delay. Accordingly we find no cogent reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court Division.

5. The petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008),424

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.