Obeda Ashasan and another Vs. Roushanara Begum Constituted Attorney

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Obeda Ashasan and another ………………………Appellants

-VS-

Roushanara Begum Constituted Attorney

by Azizul Huq Bhuiyan and others ………………….Respondents.

JUSTICE

M.H. Rahman J

A.T.M. Afzal J

Mustafa Kamal J

Latifur Rahman J

JUDGEMENT DATE: 12th April 1994.

After a series of litigations over the disputed property, holding No. 14, Rankin Street, Wari, Dhaka, the Additional District Magistrate, Dhaka restored possession of the same to the appellants on 24 January 1991…………………. (1)

At the time of granting leave operation of the judgment and order dated 22 September 1993 of the High Court Division passed in Civil Revision No. 2769 of 1993 was stayed for three months. In their respective concise statements both the appellants and the respondents have stated that the respondents had already been evicted from the suit holding and the appellants had been given possession thereof on 16 January 1994 ………………..(4)

In view of the above circumstances, there is no point in hearing the appeal on merit and, accordingly, it is disposed of. No costs…………………….. (5)

Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1993. (From the judgment and order dated 22 November 1993 passed by the High Court Division, Dhaka in Civil Revision No. 2769 of 1993).

Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record………………For the Appellants

Santi Ranjan Karmakar, Advocate-on-Record…………. For the Respondents

Respondent Nos. 2-4 ……………………….Not Represented.

JUDGMENT

1. M.H. Rahman J: After a series of litigations over the disputed property, holding No. 14, Rankin Street, Wari, Dhaka, the Additional District Magistrate, Dhaka restored possession of the same to the appellants on 24 January 1991. However, on an application

filed by Raushan Ara Begum wife of A.K.M. Kabir, and the constituted attorney of the

plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 168 of 1993 of the Court of Assistant Judge, Sixth Court, Dhaka, the Additional District Magistrate evicted the appellants on 25 February 1991 and gave possession to the said Raushan Ara Begum.

2. The appellants challenged that eviction by instituting writ petition No. 513 of 1971.

Raushan Ara Begum though filed power in that case on 20 May 1991, did not file any

Affidavit-in-opposition. The Rule issued in the writ petition, was made absolute by a

judgment and order dated 16 June 1993. A civil petition for leave to appeal against that

judgment was filed by Raushan Ara Begum. The petition was dismissed on 12 August

1993 August 1993 as not pressed.

3. Thereafter Raushan Ara Begum describing herself as a constituted attorney for the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 168 of 1993 in the Sixth Court of Assistant Judge, Dhaka for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from taking possession of the

suit holding. The plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction was summarily rejected

on 15 August 1993. On appeal an order for status quo was passed on 18 August 1993. At

the instance of the appellants that order of status quo was vacated on 16 September 1993.

Thereafter the plaintiff-respondents filed Civil Revision No. 2769 of 1993 and obtained on 22 September 1993 a Rule and an ad-interim order staying the order vacating the order of status quo for four months from the Vacation Bench of the High Court Division. The appellants filed an application for vacating that ad-interim order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court Division without applying his mind to the appellants’ case rejected the prayer by merely observing that after four months the stay order would die a natural death, if not extended in the meantime.

4. At the time of granting leave operation of the judgment and order dated 22 September

1993 of the High Court Division passed in Civil Revision No. 2769 of 1993 was stayed

for three months. In their respective concise statements both the appellants and the respondents have stated that the respondents had already been evicted from the suit holding and the appellants had been given possession thereof on 16 January 1994.

5. In view of the above circumstances, there is no point in hearing the appeal on merit and, accordingly, it is disposed of. No costs.

Ed.

Source: IV ADC (2007), 374

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.