Noor Uddin Vs. Alimuddin and others

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Noor Uddin …………………..……………………………..Petitioner

-vs-

Alimuddin and others……………………………………… Respondents

JUDGES

M. M. Ruhul Amin J

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Date of Judgment

22nd August 2005

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The High Court Division while allowing the prayer for amendment held that in a suit for partition prayer for declaration is added that con not change the nature and character of the suit (5)

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials arrived at a correct decision (6)

ADVOCATES

A. 5. M. Khalequzzaman, Advocate-on-Record. For the Petitioner Nurul Islam Bhuiyan, Advocate-on-Record For Respondent No.l Not represented Respondent Nos.2-18 Civil Petition for leave to appeal No. 1248 of 2003.

JUDGMENT

1. M. M. Ruhul Amin J : This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2003 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.4300 of 2002 making the Rule absolute.

2. Short facts are that the plaintiffs instituted Partition Suit No.295 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, (now Joint District Judge), Kishoreganj seeking partition of their share in the suit land. The suit on transfer to the Court of Assistant Judge, Kishoreganj was renumbered as Partition Suit No.95 of 1993.

3. The defendant Nos.2,5 and 8 contested the suit by filing written statement and the learned Assistant Judge upon hearing the parties dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred other Class Appeal No.372 of 1993 before the learned District Judge, Kishoreganj. The appeal was transfarred to the Court of Joint District Judge, Kishoreganj for hearing. During pendency of the appeal an application for amendment of the plaint under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed but the learned joint District Judge rejected the application for amendment. The plaintiffs then moved the High Court Division in revisional jurisdiction. The High Court Division allowed the amendment application and made the Rule absolute.

4. We have heard Mr. A. S. M. khalequzzaman, the learned advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.

5. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff added a prayer for declaration of title in the suit for partition and for payment of advalorem court fee accordingly. The High Court

Division while allowing the prayer for amendment held that in a suit for partition prayer for declaration is added that can not change the nature and character of the suit.

6. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials arrived at a correct decision.

7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Source: III ADC (2006) 916

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.