Abdul Karim alias M.A. Karim Vs. Nurun Nabi Mullah and others, V ADC (2008) 966

Case No: Civil Review Petition No. 21 of 2006

Judge: Md. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Faruque Ahmed,,

Citation: V ADC (2008) 966

Case Year: 2008

Appellant: Abdul Karim alias M.A. Karim

Respondent: Nurun Nabi Mullah and others

Subject: Review Petition,

Delivery Date: 2006-11-29

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin, J.
M.M. Ruhul Amin, J.
Md. Tafazzul Islam, J.
 
Abdul Karim alias M.A. Karim
….............Petitioner
Vs.
Nurun Nabi Mullah and others
…….........Respondent
 
Judgment
November 29, 2006
 
Petitioner seeking review upon making submission that upon requisition the requiring body is not supposed to utilize the land requisitioned till there has been acquisition of the requisitioned land.
The submission made in support of review application is not a ground for review and the grounds raised in the petition for review in no way can be considered ground of review.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Faruque Ahmed, Senior Advocate, instructed by Nurul Islam Bhuiya, Advocate-on-record-For the Petitioner.
Not represented- the Respondents.
 
Civil Review Petition No. 21 of 2006.
(From the Judgment and Order dated January 12, 2005 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Appeal No.46 of 2004)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Ruhul Amin J.
 
This petition for review is directed against the judgment dated January 12, 2005 in Civil Appeal No.46 of 2004 allowing the same.
 
2. The learned Counsel for the petition­er seeking review upon making submis­sion that upon requisition the requiring body is not supposed to utilize the land requisitioned till there has been acquisi­tion of the requisitioned land. No other submission was made in support of the review application. The submission made by the learned Counsel in support of the review application appears to be queer or in other words strange one.
 
3. The submission made in support of the review application is not a ground for review and the grounds rose in the petition for review in no way can be considered ground of review.
 
Accordingly the petition for review is dismissed having no merit.
 
Ed.