Abdur Rouf Khan & another Vs. Jobbar Ali Howlader, 2 LNJ (2013) 492

Case No: Civil Revision No. 3125 of 2013

Judge: Sheikh Abdul Awal,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. Harunur Rashid,,

Citation: 2 LNJ (2013) 492

Case Year: 2013

Appellant: Abdur Rouf Khan and another

Respondent: Jobbar Ali Howlader

Delivery Date: 2013-10-01

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
 
Sheikh Abdul Awal, J.

Judgment
01.10.2013.
 
Abdur Rouf Khan and another.
. . . Defendant-petitioners.
-Versus-
Jobbar Ali Howlader.
...Plaintiff-opposite party.
 
Code Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Order VII, Rule 11
Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3)
No application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies in violation Miscellaneous Case filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code inasmuch as such violation application can never be termed as a plaint.                                                  …(8)

Mr. Md. Harunur Rashid, Advocate
... For the petitioners.
Mr. Zainul Abedin with
Mr. Abdul Hye Fakir, Advocates.
...For the opposite party No.1

Civil Revision No. 3125 of 2013
 
JUDGMENT
Sheikh Abdul Awal, J.
 
This application under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure calls in question the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 12.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barisal in Civil Revision No. 72 of 2009 under section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure disallowing the Civil Revision and thereby affirming the order dated 29.10.2008 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Hijla, Barisal in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2007 under order 39, Rule 2(3) CPC rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule n of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 
Relevant fact leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision under section 115(4) CPC is that while the Violation Misc. Case No. 11 of 2007 was in progress the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the violation misc. case before the learned Assistant Judge, Hijla, Barisal.
 
The learned Assistant Judge, Barisal upon hearing the parties by his order No. 162 dated 29.10.2009 rejected the application on the finding that the violation misc. case is a Quashi Criminal Case in which the defendant Nos. 3-4 could not show anything that the violation case is barred by limitation.
 
In Revision, the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barisal by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.5.2010 disallowed the Revision and affirmed the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Hijla, Barisal on the main finding that in a violation misc. case the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lie.
 
Mr. Md. Harunur Rashid, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below erred in law in rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule n read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the Violation Misc. Case No. 11 of 2007 without properly considering the facts of the case and  the  case  made  out  by  the  petitioners  and  the  same  has occasioned failure of justice.
 
The learned Advocate for the petitioners has placed before me the application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the Violation Misc. Case No. 11 of 2007 and the impugned judgment as well as order of the trial Court below.
 
On perusal of the impugned judgment it is found that the learned Additional District Judge on the facts of the case and on consideration of the legal position rejected the Civil Revision on the finding that: সার্বিক বিচারে দেখা যায় মিস মামলাটি আরজীভুক্ত নহে বা মূল মামলার (Original suit) নহে। এই অজুহাতে বিজ্ঞ নিম্ন আদালত আরজী প্রত্যাখানের দরখাস্ত খারিজ করেন নাই। আইনতঃ মিস Violation মোকদ্দমা কোন আরজী বা Original suit গন্য না হওয়ায়, দেওয়ানী কার্যবিধির ৭ আদেশের ১১ (এ) (বি) (সি) (ডি) ধারা প্রযোজ্য নহে। উক্ত কারনে বিজ্ঞ নিম্ন আদালতরে বিগত ২৯-১০-০৮ তারিখর নামঞ্জুর আদেশ যুক্তিযুক্ত হওয়ায় এবং জ্জ নং বিবাদী রিভিশনকারী যেন-তেন প্রকার শিস Violation মামলা যাহা একটি Quaci-Criminal in nature এর মামলা গোড়ায় নষ্ট করার জন্য আনায়ন করেন। তৎ কারনে জ্জ নং বিবাদী রিভিশনকারী তার রিভিশন মোকদ্দমাটি সাফল্যজনক ভাবে প্রমানিত না করায়, প্রার্থীত প্রতিকার পেতে হকদার নহে।
 
On going through the findings of the Revisional Court below, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the Revisional Court below. I fully endorse the above views. The application under order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure can never be termed as a plaint.   No application under order VII, Rule II CPC lies in violation Miscellaneous case under order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 
Mr. Md. Harunur Rashid, the learned Advocate could not show any error of law or infirmity in the impugned judgments or findings of the courts below are either arbitrary or fanciful or findings of the Courts below are perverse being contrary to law and fact. The application under section under Order VII, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the Violation Misc. Case No. 11 of 2007 is found to have been rightly rejected. I, therefore, find no ground for interference.
 
For the forgoing reasons, the revisional application is rejected summarily.
 
Let this order be communicated to the Courts concerned at once.
 
Ed.