An application under section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay of 696 in filling the civil revision application

DISTRICT:_____________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CIVIL RULE NO. OF ____________

CIVIL REVISION NO. OF___________

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay of 696 in filling the civil revision application

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Arab Bangladesh Bank Limited Principal Branch

BCIC Bhaban

30-31 Dilkusha Commercial Area

Dhaka 1000

Defendant/Petitioner

-Versus-

1. Mr. X

Son of Late Y

500 (currently 20) Dhanmondi R/A

Road No. 7, Dhaka 1205

2. Z

Wife of Y

500 (currently 20) Dhanmondi R/A

Road No.7, Dhaka 1205

3. Mrs. A

Wife of B

House No.173/D (Currently 56)

Road No. 13/1

Dhanmondi Residential Area,

Dhaka

Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties

PETITION VALUED AT TK. 7,83,00,000.00 ONLY

BEING SUIT VALUED AT TK. 7,83,00,000.00 ONLY

To

Mr. Justice Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain, the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his Companion Justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bangladesh.

The humble petition on behalf of the defendant No. 9/petitioner above-named most respectfully.

SHEWETH:

01. That the instant application under section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay of 696 days has been arising out Order No. 35 dated 30.09.2004 passed by Mr. Md. Golam Kibria, Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka in Title Suit No. 106 of 2003 disallowing the application under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the defendant No.9/ petitioner for framing of legal issue.

02. That it is started that there is no prescribed period of limitation in the code of civil procedure or in the limitation Act, 1908 for filling revision but as a long standing practice before this Hon’ble Court 90 days limitation for filling Civil Revision.

07. That plaintiffs/opposite parties has filed Title Suit No. 106 of 2003 on 18.05.2003 in the Court of Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka against this petitioner and others praying for the reliefs inter alia declaration that the mortgage deed described in the B schedule of the plaint is forged, fabricated, illegal and void.

08. That the defendant No. 9/petitioner appeared in Title Suit No. 106 of 2003 through its lawyer and subsequently when the suit came at the hearing stage, the defendant No.9/petitioner on 27.07.2004 filed an application under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for framing of the legal issue, i.e., whether the suit is barred by section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

09. That the learned Court upon hearing of the application vide Order No. 30 dated 27.07.2004 re-framed all the issues and fixed the next date of the suit for further hearing on 17.08.2004.

10. That thereafter the defendant No.9/petitioner on 17.08.2004 submitted an application for adjournment praying that the suggested legal issue of the defendant No.9/petitioner should be tried and disposed of first postponing the factual issues and for adjournment/postponement of further hearing of the suit until disposal of the suggested legal issue.

11. That the learned Court heard the application for adjournment on 12.09.2004, but did not pass any order on that date. Subsequently, on 30.09.2004 the learned Court vide Order No. 35 disallowed the application of the defendant No.9/petitioner.

12. That it may be mentioned here that the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 528 of 2004 in the learned District Judge Court, Dhaka against Order No. 35 dated 30.09.2004 passed by Mr. Md. Golam Kibria, Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka in Title Suit No. 106 of 2003 disallowing the application under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the defendant No.9/ petitioner for framing of legal issue. After hearing, the learned District Judge Court, Dhaka admitted the Civil Revision and thereafter granted order of stay of further proceedings of Title Suit No. 106 of 2003.

13. That it is stated that subsequently the learned Court below vide order No. 12 dated 15.06.2006 directed to return the petition of the Civil Revision to the petitioner with observation that as per judgement passed in Civil Revision No. 1701 of 2005 reported in 58 DLR, page 211, the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the Civil Revision No. 528 of 2004. Subsequently, on 06.07.2006 the learned Court below returned the petition of Civil Revision No. 528 of 2004 along with papers/documents to the petitioner. In fact only 79 (seventy nine) days has been passed from the date when the learned Court below returned the petition and papers/documents to the petitioner.

14. That it is submitted that the delay of filing this revisional application was occurred because of filing Civil Revision No. 528 of 2004 in the Court of District Judge, Dhaka by the petitioner which was subsequently returned by the learned Court District Judge Court, Dhaka for lack of jurisdiction. As such the delay was unintentional and inadvertent on the part of the petitioner.

15. That it is submitted that there is no leaches or negligence on the part of the petitioner in filling the revisional application. That the delay in filling the revisional application is totally unintentional and beyond the control of the petitioner and as such the delay in filling the revisional application may kindly be condoned otherwise the petitioner will be highly prejudiced.

16. That the petition is filed bona-fide.

Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the delay of 696 days should not be condone in filling the revisional application and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to your Lordship may deem fit and proper for ends of justice in the case.

And for this act of kindness the defendant/petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray.

AFFIDAVIT

I, ____________________________, son of _____________________, _____________of Arab Bangladesh Bank Limited, Principal Branch, BCIC Bhaban, 30-31 Dilkusha Commercial Area, Dhaka 1000, aged about 32 years, by faith Muslim, profession service, nationality Bangladeshi, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:

01. That I am the officer of the petitioner in this case and acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent and authorised to swear this Affidavit.

02. That the statements of facts made in this petition are true to my knowledge and matters of records, which I verily believe to be true and the rests are submission before this Hon’ble Court.

Prepared in my office:
DEPONENT
Advocate The deponent is known to me and identified by me.
Solemnly affirmed before me by the said deponent on this the__ day of ______________ at _______ a.m. ADVOCATE

Commissioner of Affidavits

Supreme Court of Bangladesh

High Court Division

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.