Appellate Division Cases
Mir Kalimuddin ,being dead his heirs l(a) Asia Khatun alias Chamatkar Biby and…………………….Petitioners
Mohammad Dhukhi Mondal and others………………….Respondents
Md. Ruhul Amin. J
M. M Ruhul Amin. J
Md. Tafazzal Islam. J
JUDGEMENT DATE: 16th June, 2004
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972. Article 105
Grounds raised in support of the petition for review have been considered by this Division while rejecting the petition for leave to appeal. The learned Counsel could not make out any case of review of the judgment dated April 5, 2003. In that view of the matter we find no substance in the petition. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed ……………………………(7)
Civil Review Petition No. 63 of 2003 (From the Judgment and order dated April 5,
2003 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 632 of 2002).
S. M. Zillul Haque, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr, Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-
Record…………… For the Petitioners
Md. Narul Islam, Advocate, instructed by A. K. M. Shahidid Huq, Advocate-on-
Record……………….. For the Respondents.
1. Md. Ruhul Amin, J :- Petitioners seek review of the judgment dated April 5, 2003
rejecting the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 632 of 2002 which was filed against the judgment and decree of a single Bench of the High Court division in Second Appeal No. 205 of 1979 allowing the same.
2. Plaintiff-Respondent filed suit, Title Suit No. 151 of 1967, seeking declaration of title
and confirmation of possession in respect of the land measuring 3.75 acres which he acquired in exchange of his property in India. It was the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the land in suit since 1356 B.S and that during R.S operation defendants managed to get the land in suit recorded in their names and on the basis of the said wrong recording raised claim in respect of the land in suit and also threatend the plaintiff to dispossess from the land in suit.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants stating, inter alia, that by an oral exchange in
1356 B.S defendant No. 8 got the property in suit and that thereafter a power of attorney was executed by the wife of Hajarilal Modal, who owned the property in suit in favour of the defendant No.8 and on the basis of the said power of attorney defendant No.8 executed a deed of exchange in the form of sale deed on June 2, 1955 in favour of his wife and sons (defendant Nos. 5-7) and that defendant Nos. 14 have purchased the suit land from the defendant Nos. 5-7 by different kabalas and are in possession of the land in suit.
4.The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants filed appeal, Title appeal No. 125 of
1970 and the same was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 13.7.1972. There from
plaintiff respondent went on appeal, Second Appeal No. 205 of 1979 and the same was
allowed by the High Court Division.
5. At the time of hearing of the petition for leave to appeal it was submitted that as the
appellate court upon scrutinizing the materials on record came to the conclusion that the
exchange deed Ext. A of the defendants was a bonafide document and as such the High Court Division in second appeal erred in law “in holding that no fraud practiced by the plaintiff respondent”.
6. This Division upon perusal of the materials on record arrived at the finding that in
making the judgment the High Court Division did not commit any illegality and that there is no such infirmity in the judgment of the High Court Division calling for interference and thereupon dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
7. Grounds raised in support of the petition for review have been considered by this
Division while rejecting the petition for leave to appeal. The learned Counsel could not make out any case of review of the judgment dated April 5, 2003. In that view of the matter we find no substance in the petition. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.
Source: I ADC (2004), 413