An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay

DISTRICT – GAZIPUR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CIVIL REVISION NO. OF ______

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing Civil Revision.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

X

Wife of: Y

Village: Bahadurpur

P.S. Joydevpur

District: Gazipur

… Defendant/Respondent/ Petitioner

-Versus-

1. A

S/o. B

Village: Bahadurpur

P.S. Joydebpur

District: Gazipur

… Plaintiff/Appellant/Opposite Party

2. The Sub-Register

Joydebpur Sub- Registry office

P.S. Joydebpur

District: Gazipur

…Defendant/Respondent/Proforma opposite party

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Judgement being dated 30.10.2008 and Decree being dated 7.10.2008 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Gazipur in the Title Appeal No. 122 of 2003 allowing the appeal by setting aside the Judgement being dated 27.04.2003 and Decree being dated 03.05.2003 passed by the learned 5th Assistant Judge Court, Gazipur in the original Title Suit No. 55/99 dismissing the suit.

To

Mr. Justice M. M. Ruhul Amin, the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his companion justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble Petition on behalf of the Petitioner above named most respectfully –

SHEWETH:

1. That the Plaintiff/Appellant/Opposite Party (the opposite party) filed a Title Suit being no. 154/94 (renumbered as 55/99) on 03.10.94 for the declaration of cancellation of the exchange deed being no. 3094 dated 21.03.1991 executed between the opposite party and the Defendant/Respondent/Petitioner (the petitioner) in the office of the Defendant/Respondent/Proforma opposite party (the opposite party no. 2). The petitioner contested the suit by filing the written statement on 28.05.1998.

2. That the learned Assistant Judge eventually tried the suit and after considering the evidence on record and the documents submitted by the both parties, dismissed the suit in favour of the Petitioner vide judgment and decree being dated 27.04.2003 and 03.05.2003 respectively and being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Opposite party preferred an appeal before the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Gazipur, Title Appeal no. 122/03. The Petitioner contested the appeal. Eventually, the learned Joint District Judge heard the appeal and was pleased to allow the appeal on contest against the Petitioner and the deed of exchange being no. 3094 dated 21.03.91 was declared as cancelled by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008 and 07.10.2008 respectively.

3. That the petitioner consulted with his dealing lawyer just after the Judgment and Decree of the learned Joint District Judge. His lawyer advised him not to file the revision against the said judgment. The lawyer told the petitioner that he would not get any benefit in the revision application. He also opined that there was highly likely that the High Court Division would uphold the decision of the Joint District Judge. The petitioner relied on wrong advice of his lawyer and refrained from filing the revision application.

4. That the petitioner eventually consulted the learned lawyer of the High Court Division. The learned lawyer perused the judgment and decree of the lower trial court and lower appellate court and gave an opinion in favour of filing the revision application. He also says that there is good prospect of success from the revision application.

5. That for the reasons stated above the petitioner could not file the revision application in due time. Therefore, the revision application has been delayed for 51 days.

6. That it is submitted that there is a fair possibility of the petitioner being succeed from the revision application and the fruitful purpose will be served if the delay is condoned and the revision application is heard on merit.

7. That the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he is always bound to obey any order of the Court but he could not prefer the revision application earlier as he was misguided by the wrong advice of his lawyer.

8. That it is submitted that the delay is unintentional and not willful rather the delay is due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner therefore, the delay should be condoned.

9. That the petitioner submits that for ends of justice this delay of 51 days in filing this revision may kindly be condoned and if it is not condoned the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.

Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to issue a notice upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the delay of 51 days in filing the revision application shall not be condoned, and after hearing the parties and perusing the cause shown, if any, make the order condoning the delay and pass such other or further order or orders as your Lordship would deem fit and proper.

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

AFFIDAVIT

I, …………………………….., son of …………………………………, of Village- …………………………., P.S. ……………………, District: …………….. aged about …………. years by faith _______________, by profession ……………………, nationality Bangladeshi by birth, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows: –

01. That I am the Tadbirkar of the Petitioner and as such I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

02. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 1 to 11 hereinabove are true to my knowledge and matters of record, which I verily believe to be true and the rests are submission before this Hon’ble Court.

Prepared in my office

___________________________

(……………………………………..) DEPONENT

Advocate

………………….. Dhaka. The deponent is known to me and identified by me.

Solemnly affirmed before me by

the said ___________________ at

the Supreme Court premises, Dhaka

on this the … day of __________ at _________.

(…………………………………….)

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.