An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay

DISTRICT: DHAKA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. OF 2005

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay in filing revisional application

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. X

Executive Vice President

K Bank Limited

Dilkusha Branch

48, Dilkusha Commercial Area

Dhaka

Petitioner

-Versus-

Mr. Y

Son of Md. H

39/4, Shantinagar

P.S. Motijheel

Dhaka-1000

Present Address:

21/1/Ka, Baitul Aman Housing Society

Shamoli

P.S. Mohammadpur

Opposite Party

The humble petition on behalf of the above named petitioner most respectfully

SHEWETH:

1. That the petitioner has filed the above revisional application against Order No. 3 dated 30.07.2003 passed by Alhaj Md. Matiur Rahman, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka in Metro Revision Case No. 339 of 2003.

2. That although there is no period of limitation for filing a revisional application, there is a long standing practice being followed that a revisional application is to be filed within the period of ninety days, prescribed by law for an appeal, and that the High Court Division may in its discretion entertain an application beyond that period in a suitable case where there is no negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner. There above-mentioned revisional application has been filed beyond the period of 90 days.

3. That the petitioner was not aware that Mr. Y filed Metro Criminal Revision Case No. 339 of 2003 challenging the Order dated 27.10.2002 passed by the Shamim Ara Khatun, Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka in Mirpur P.S. Case No. 36(8)2000. No summons or process of the said Metro Criminal Revision Case was served on the petitioner. The petitioner was also not aware of Order No. 3 dated 30.07.2003 passed by Alhaj Md. Matiur Rahman, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka in Metro Revision Case No. 339 of 2003 by which the accused, Mr. Y was discharged.

4. That the petitioner has only come to know about the Order No. 3 dated 30.07.2003 passed by Alhaj Md. Matiur Rahman, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka in Metro Revision Case No. 339 of 2003 on 15.01.2005. The petitioner immediately applied for certified copy of the Order on 18.02.2005 through its lawyer and obtained certified copy of Order. The file along with all related papers/documents was sent to the concerned lawyer of the petitioner and the concerned lawyer filed the revisional application on __________. The delay in filing the revisional application arose because of the petitioner’s not being aware of the Metro Revision Case and the Order passed in the said case. The petitioner was also not aware that the prosecution has not filed any revisional application against the said Order. Hence, there is no negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner for the delay in filing the instant revisional application. The delay may therefore be condoned for ends of justice.

5. That the delay in filing the revisional application is unintentional and there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner. There is sufficient cause for not filing the revisional application within the period of 90 days, which is a long standing practice. However, this Hon’ble Court may in its discretion entertain the revisional application filed beyond the period of 90 days since there is no negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Court may therefore condone the delay in filing the revisional application and allow the petitioner to file the revisional application.

6. That this application has been filed bonafide and no one would be prejudiced if the delay is condoned and as such this application may be allowed for ends of justice.

Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Issue Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the delay in filing the revisional application against Order No. 3 dated 30.07.2003 passed by Alhaj Md. Matiur Rahman, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka in Metro. Criminal Revision Case No. 339 of 2003 shall not be condoned;

(b) After perusal of the records, hearing of the parties and cause shown, if any, condone the delay in filing the revisional application;

(c) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

A F F I D A V I T

I, ________________________ son of ________________________ of K Bank Limited, Dilkusha Branch, 48 Dilkusha Commercial Area, Dhaka-1000, aged about _____ years, by occupation service, by faith Muslim, nationally Bangladeshi, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:

01. That I am Executive Vice President 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 March, 2005 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.