IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
CIVIL REVISION NO. 4618 OF 1999
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application for restoration of Civil Revision by setting aside the order dated 05.02.2001 passed by this Hon’ble Court discharging the Rule for default.
IN THE MATTER OF:
X Industries Development Corporation and others
PETITION VALUED AT TK. (NIL)
Mr. Justice Latifur Rahman, the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his companion justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The humble petition of the petitioner above named most respectfully
01. That the above revisional petition was filed against Judgement and order dated 21.06.99 passed by Mr. Sharif Toyiabur Rahman, Additional Commissioner (Rangamati), Chittagong Division, Chittagong (exercising the jurisdiction of a Civil Court) in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1997 (Rangamati) allowing the appeal filed by the opposite-party against the judgement and order dated 24.02.97 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rangamati Hill District (exercising the jurisdiction of a civil Court) in Civil Suit No. 17 of 1995 dismissing the suit filed by the opposite-party. Civil Suit No. 17 of 1995 was filed by the opposite-party for declaration that the order dated 30.03.93 dismissing the opposite-party from service of X Industries Development Corporation is illegal, void and inoperative and not binding upon the opposite-party. The opposite party was dismissed from his service on 30.03.93 vide Office Order No. 193 for misappropriation and defalcation of Tk. 1,30,629.39 only after proper enquiry and after compliance with all legal formalities by the Corporation.
02. That after hearing, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue Rule vide order dated 07.12.99. The Hon’ble Court was also pleased to stay operation of the impugned Judgement and Order dated 21.06.99 passed by Mr. Sharif Toyiabur Rahman, Additional Commissioner (Rangamati), Chittagong Division, Chittagong (exercising the jurisdiction of a Civil Court) in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1997 (Rangamati) till disposal of the Rule.
03. That the above Civil Revision had been coming up in the list of this Hon’ble Court. On 05.02.2001 the matter came up in the list as item No. 27 for hearing after 7 other First Appeals. The learned conducting Lawyer for the petitioners was present in the Court. At around 12-15 p.m., while the hearing of item No. 19 was continuing the learned conducting Lawyer for the petitioners left the Court Room of this Hon’ble Court and went to Court No. 8 to check out his another matter. But before his return to this Court, the hearing of item No. 19 concluded and the above Civil Revision which was listed as item No. 27 was taken up for hearing since the previous items were dismissed for default as no one was present in those items. Since the learned Advocate for the petitioners was in Court No. 8, he could not present when the above Civil Revision was taken up for hearing and as such the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the Civil Revision for default.
04. That it is submitted that the learned Advocate for the petitioners was in Court No. 8 when the above Civil Revision was taken up for hearing as the previous items were dismissed for default. As such the learned Advocate could not appear before this Hon’ble court when the above Civil Revision was taken up for hearing. The non-presence of the learned Advocate for petitioners was unintentional since he was in Court No. 8.
05. That in such circumstances this application has been filed for restoration of the above Civil Revision by setting aside Order dated 05.02.2001 passed by this Hon’ble Court.
06. That it is submitted that the above Civil Revision may be restored for ends of justice. It is also submitted that unless the above Civil Revision is restored the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
07. That it is submitted that the non-presence of the learned Advocate was unintentional and bona-fide. As such unless the above Civil Revision is restored the petitioners will be seriously prejudiced.
08. That this application is filed bona-fide.
Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 05.02.2001 passed by this Hon’ble Court dismissing the above Civil Revision for default and restore the Civil Revision No. 4618 of 1999 in its original file and Number and/or pass such other or further order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness the petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
I, Z, son of Mr. K, Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, 67 Naya Paltan (4th floor), P.S. Motijheel, Dhaka-1000, aged about 32 years, by faith Muslim, by profession Advocate, nationality Bangladeshi, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
01. That I am the Advocate for the petitioners in this case and acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent to swear this Affidavit.
02. That the statement 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:|
|Advocate||The deponent is known to me and identified by me.|
|Solemnly affirmed before me by the said deponent on this the 6th day of February, 2001 at _______ p.m.||Advocate|
|Commissioner of Affidavits
Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division