IN THE COURT OF 4th ASSISTANT JUDGE, DHAKA
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. _________OF __________
Q Trade & Tours Limited
Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others
WRITTEN OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 4:
01. That the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in its present form and nature.
02. That there is no cause of action to file the petition against the opposite party no. 4 (the “opposite party”) and as such the petition should be dismissed with costs.
03. That the petition has been filed with mala fide intention to make illegal gain from the opposite party. Since the Suit has been filed with mala fide motive, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
04. That the petition is barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel.
05. That the petition is framed on wrong conception of law and facts.
06. That the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties.
07. That the petition is not maintainable as it did not comply with the legal formalities preceding the filing of a petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed summarily on the face of the petition as the petitioner filed the said petition without any cause of action.
08. That the statements made in the petition which are not specifically admitted hereinafter shall be deemed to have been denied by the opposite party.
09. That the statements made in paragraph no. 1 of the petition are mostly matter of records. The burden of proving the statements lies strictly upon the petitioner and therefore, the opposite party refrains from making any comments.
10. That the statements made in paragraph 2 of the petition are incorrect, false, fabricated, concocted and hence the opposite party strongly denies such statement. It is denied that the petitioner did not find their appointed lawyer, Ms. R in her chamber and in her designated place in the Dhaka Bar Association Building on the day of peremptory hearing of the Title Suit No. 173/2000. It is also denied that the petitioner himself appeared before the learned Court and failed to communicate with the Bench Officer (Peshkar). It is also denied that the Bench Officer and his assistants did not cooperate with the petitioner. In fact, neither the petitioner nor its appointed lawyer did appear before the learned Court on that day of hearing. It was their intentional absence. Since they do not have any valid claim against the opposite party.
11. That the statements made in paragraph no. 3 of the petition are denied by the opposite party. There was no valid claim in the Title Suit No. 173/2000 against the opposite party. It is worth noting that the petitioner’s Title Suit No. 173/2000 was dismissed due to default of the petitioner on 14.06.2004. Subsequently it was dismissed on 04.01.2007. From the fact of twice dismissal of the Title Suit No. 173/2000, it appears that the petitioner has no valid claim at all. The petitioner filed that Suit to harass the opposite party. It is denied that the petitioner’s lawyer was in India for having the treatment and thereby failed to take initiatives on the date of hearing.
12. That the statement made in paragraph no. 4 is denied by the opposite party.
13. The real fact is that the petitioner could able to presume the fate of the Title Suit No. 173/2000 i.e. dismissal of that Suit and therefore they were reluctant to appear before the learned Court. The petitioner’s lawyer, Ms. R was within vicinity of the Court on the date of hearing. Even the petitioner never approached the learned Court or its Bench officer for any assistance. It is the fact that the Suit was dismissed for default once on 14.06.2004 and lastly on 04.01.2007. It is clearly evident from the fact that the petitioner was reluctant to take necessary steps on those dates. Because, it is very much within the knowledge of the petitioner that they will not succeed in Title Suit No. 173/2000. Therefore, it was willful absence from the said Suit having the full knowledge about its fate. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to monitor their Suit regularly and diligently and to appoint another lawyer when they became aware that their appointed lawyer Ms. R was absent in the Court. In fact, the petitioner was never interest to monitor the Suit regularly as they were aware that there was no merit of that Suit in their favour. Since the petitioner is a limited company it is petitioner’s responsibility to protect the interest of their shareholders. He must show more responsible attitude than the ordinary and individual personality. Being a limited company, the petitioner can not be reluctant to take reasonable care and diligence in taking steps on the date of hearing. It is stated that the petitioner did not take any appropriate actions either in Bangladesh Bar Council or in Dhaka Bar Association against their lawyer, Ms. R for her negligent absence from the hearing on that particular. The petitioner even did not file any Suit against the negligent lawyer for loss and damage caused thereby.
14. That the only intention of the petitioner is to harass and illegal gain from the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no cause of action arose to file this petition against opposite party. The petitioner filed this petitioner with mala fide intention to harass the opposite party. This petition is not maintainable against the opposite party. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that the learned Court would graciously be pleased to dismiss the Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 2007 filed by the petitioner with compensatory costs in favour of the opposite party.
And for this act of kindness the opposite party as in duty bound shall ever pray.
That the statements made above are true to my knowledge and matter of records, whereof, I put my signature on the 28th day of October, 2007.