Appellate Division Cases
Mohammad Rashid and others……………. Petitioners.
The Head Master and Secretary Moheshkhali High School and others ………….Respondents.
Md. Ruhul Amin J
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Judgment Dated: 13th December 2006
For declaration of title, confirmation of possession and also for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land on the averments that the suit land originally belonged to Monsur AH, the father of the plaintiff No.l and the grandfathers of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5, who was raiyat under Khiroda Chandra Roy; the superior landlord………….(2)
As it appears the petitioner in the garb of review petition has filed this petition to get the petition for leave to appeal heard afresh. The learned counsel could not also point out any error apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed. In that view of the matter we do not find any merit in this petition. ……………….(5)
Accordingly the review petition is dismissed………………. (6)
Md. Fazlul Karim. Senior Advocate, instructed hy the A KM Sha/iidul lluq, Advocate-on-Record ……………………….For the Petitioners.
Respondent………………………….. Not represented
Civil Review Petition No. 69 of 2006
(From the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2006 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1186 of 2004).
Md. Tafazzul Islam J : This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order passed by this Division on 2.4.2006 dismissing Civil Petition No. 1186 of 2004.
2. Padua Bibi. the predecessors of the petitioner Nos. l(Ka)to 1 (Cha) along with the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 herein filed Other Suit No. 14 of 1986 (previously Other Suit No. 229 of 198) for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and also for permanent injunction m respect of the suit land or, the averments that the suit land originally belonged to Monsur Ah, the father of the plaintiff No. 1 and the grandfathers of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5, who was raiyat under Khiroda Chandra Roy; the superior landlord; while Monsur Ali was owning and possessing the suit land, his daughter, the plaintiff No. 1 was given marriage with the father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 who, being domesticated, stayed in the suit land by constructing dwelling house thereon; since then the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land but the defendant No.l recently threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and hence the suit. The defendant No.l. contested the suit by filing written statement contending that Monsur Ali having abandoned the suit land the landlords took khas possession of the same and thereafter Ajit Kumar Roy. one of the landlords, gifted the suit land along with other lands to Moheshkhali High School; the Managing Committee oi~ the above school dismissed Mostaque Ahmed Chowdhury. the Assistant Headmaster of the above School, who then out of grudge inducted the plaintiff No.l in the school premises who constructed two houses therein; the defendant No. 1 then took initiative to evict the plaintiffs from the suit land and then they, for illegally retaining the possession of the suit land, filed the instant suit. The trial court after hearing, dismissed the suit. The plaitiffs then preferred Other Appeal No. 148 of 1986 and, after hearing, the appellate Court allowed the appeal. The defendant then moved the High Court Division and obtained Rule in Civil Revision No.2100 of 1996 and a Single Bench of the High Court Division, after hearing, made the Rule absolute. The plaintiffs then filed CPSLA No. 1186 of 2004 and this Division, after hearing, dismissed the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Hxt.l, the R.S. record, supports the tenancy interest of the predecessor of the plaintiffs in the suit land and Hxt.2, the Local Inspection Report supports the existence of homestead of the plaintiff in the suit land and futhcr the plaintiffs, being the heirs of Monsur Ali, are the best witnesses to prove their relationship with Monsur Ali; their predecessor Mansur Ali and then the plaintiffs having their homestead on the suit land for generation and there being no conclusive finding to The effect that the defendant school is possession of the suit land to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and that the deed of gift of the year 1994 in favour of the school was not acted upon and further the Headmaster and Secretary. Moheshkhali High School being the best persons to represent the school the judgment and order of this Division dated 2.4.1986 is liable to be reviewed for ends of justice.
4. Heard the learned counsel and also perused the content of the judgment sought to be reviewed.
5. As it appears the petitioner in the garb of review petition has filed this petition to get the petition for leave to appeal heard afresh. The learned counsel could not also point out any error apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed. In that view of the matter we do not find any merit in this petition.
6. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.
Source : V ADC (2008),337