Sanat Kumar Dhar and others Vs. Aminu! Haquc and others

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Sanat Kumar Dhar and others…………….. Petitioners

-Vs-

Aminu! Haquc and others………….. Respondents

JUSTICES

Md. Ruhul Amin J

M.M. Ruhul Amin J

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Judgment Dated: 12th December 2006

The suit was filed seeking declaration of title recovery of khas possession……….. (2)

We have perused the grounds taking which the review petition has been filed. The grounds do not show that there is mistake apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed or that the review petition has been filed on the discovery of new fact. The grounds taken in the review petition show that the petitioner in the garb of seeking review is intending to get the petition for leave to appeal heard afresh. Since the grounds taken in the review petition in no way are the grounds of review of a judgment, the petition is dismissed. …………………….(4)

Bivash Chandra Biswas. Advocate-onrecord ………………For the Petitioners

SM.ZillulHucj. ScniorAdvocate. instructed by Nawab Ali, Advocaic-on-record …………..For the Respondents

Civil Review Petition No.23 of 2006

From the Judgment and Order dated July 20, 2005 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Peiition for Leave to Appeal No. 1635 of 2003)

JUDGMENT

Md. Ruhul Amin J: This petition seeking review has been filed against the judgment

dated July 20, 2005 in Civil Petition for Leave to’Appeal No. 1635 of 2003. The civil petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court Division dated July 16. 2003 in Civil Revision No.3197 of 1998 which was filed against the judgment and decree dated July 5, 1998 of the 3rd Court of Subordinate Judge (now Joint Distrinct Judge Mymensingh in Other Class Appeal.No.l28 of 1994 setting aside the judgment and decree dated March 23. 1994 of the Additional Court of Senior Assistant Judge. Mymensingh in Other Class Suit No.70 of 1992 decreeing the same. The High Court Division by the judgment as mentioned hereinbefore upon making the Rule absolute reversed the judgment of the appellate Court.

2. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title recovery of khas possession.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit as mentioned hereinbefore and on appeal the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was sent back on remand for fresh trial. As against the order of the appellate Court plaintiff obtained Rule in the aforementioned civil revision. The High Court Division made the Rule absolute and thereby restored the judgment of the- trial Court. This Court while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal

observed that ihe trial Court upon due consideration of the materials on record disposed of the issues framed by it or in other words the trial Court disposed of the suit upon adjudicating the issues involved therein but the appellate Court without discussing the evidence and without taking into consideration the facts which ought to have been taken into consideration while disposing of the appeal interfered with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and thereupon sent back the suit to the trial Court for fresh trial. While

dismissing the petition for leave to appeal we observed that appellate Court without arriving at the finding that the trial Court disposed of the suit on preliminary point or that without adjudicating the issue involved in the suit set aside the judgment of the trial Court and thereupon sent back the suit to the trial Court for fresh trial. It was noticed by us that the High Court Division having satisfied that there were sufficient materials to dispose of the case on merit and that to avoid prolongation of the litigation went for consideration of the materials on record and thereupon made the Rule absolute upon setting aside the judgment of the appellate Court. We are of the view in the background of the materials on record High Court Division was not in error in disposing of the case on merit instead of sending the suit back either to the appellate Court or to the trial Court. In our opinion the High Court Division did the right thing in disposing of the case on

merit since an order or remand would unnecessarily delayed disposal of the suit.

4. We have perused the grounds taking which the review petition has been filed.

The grounds do not show that there is mistake apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed or that the review petition has been filed on the discovery of

new fact. The grounds taken in the review-petition show that the petitioner in the

garb of seeking review is intending to get the petition for leave to appeal heard afresh. Since the grounds taken in the review petition in no way are the grounds of review of a judgment, the petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008), 248

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.