Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Manindra Kumar Paul & ors, V ADC (2008) 667

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 940 of 2005

Judge: Md. Tafazzul Islam ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Md. Aftab Hossain,,

Citation: V ADC (2008) 667

Case Year: 2008

Appellant: Government of Bangladesh

Respondent: Manindra Kumar Paul

Subject: Procedural Law,

Delivery Date: 2006-08-31

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin J
M.M.Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
 
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, rep­resented by the Deputy Commissioner and others
........................Petitioners
Vs.
Manindra Kumar Paul and others
………..........Respondents
 
Judgment
August 31, 2006.
 
The statement made by the defendant petitioner in the application for condonation of delay with regard to date of first correspondence made on 30.08.2003 and the statements made in the said application to the effect that thereafter they obtained the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the above appeal are inconsistent and did not reflect the correct position inasmuch as application for certified copy was filed on 11.08.2003, several days before 30.08.2003, which is totally untrue and the defendant petitioner should take guard in future in making such blunt statement in an application filed before the court; the explanations offered by the defendant petitioner for condonation of inordinance delay of 1529 days in filing the revisional application is not satisfactory and the defendant petitioner being guilty of laches and negligence, are not entitled to any concession. …. (4)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Not represented- the Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 940 of 2005.
(From the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2005 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Rule No. 155 (con) of 2004).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Tafazzul Islam J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.4.2005 of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Rule No. 155 (con) of 2004 rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 1529 days in filing civil revisional appli­cation.
 
2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Title Suit No.99 of 1991 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Sadar, Chandpur for dec­laration that V. P. Case Nos. 9,10 and 11 of 1986-87 and V.P. Case No. 5 of 1987-88 filed in the Office of the Upazilla Nirbahi Officer, Chandpur, in respect of the land described in 'Ka' schedule of the plaint are collusive, illegal, without jurisdiction and not binding upon them and they also prayed for recovery of possession of Kha schedule land on the averments that the suit land belonged to Raj Kumar Paul in whose name the S.A. Khatian No. 54 was prepared; out of his 5 sons 3, sons remained untraceable from 1946 riot and nobody knew their whereabouts; Raj Kumar Paul died in this country in the middle of 1969 leaving the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, his other two sons, who did not go to India; the suit land was never entered into enemy property list and there was also no Gazette Notification enlisting the same as enemy property; after coming to know that the suit land was leased out to one Moniruzzaman the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No.247 of 1987 and then, from the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants of the above suit, they for the first time, came to know about the above vested property cases. The defendant No.6, the vested property authority, contested the suit by filing written statement contending inter alia that while Raj Kumar Paul was alive his two sons, Harendra and Nogendra, who were married, left for West Bengal with their families and his other son Ganendra also left for Agartala and they had been residing there; Raj Kumar Paul died in the year 1960 leaving 5 sons; S.A. Khatian No. 54 contained 3.99 acres of land out of which 2.40 acres of land became vested and non-resident property which, within the knowledge of plaintiffs, were settled to different persons including Dr. Moniruzzaman; earlier the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 247 of 1987 in this very court in respect of the same suit land which was dismissed after hearing both the parties; the defendant Nos.1-4 and Dr. Moniruzzaman duly took lease of 2.40 acres of land and they are in possession of the same and the plaintiffs are in posses­sion of the balance 1.59 acres which is demarcated by specific .boundaries. The learned Assistant Judge, after hearing, by judgment and decree dated 16.5.1993 dis­missed the suit. As against that the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.61 of 1993 and the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), 2nd Court, Chandpur, after hearing, by judgment and decree dated 31.8.1999 allowed the same and thereby decreeing the suit. However the Deputy Commissioner, Chandpur, after lapse of 1638 days filed a revisional application before the High Court Division impugning the aforesaid judg­ment and decree dated 31.8.1999 which an application for condonation of delay of 1638 days whereupon the above Civil Rule No. 155(con) of 2004 was issued and after hearing the above application for condonation of delay was rejected.
 
3. The learned counsel for the defen­dants/petitioners submitted that the plain­tiff respondent Nos. 1 and 2, after dispos­al of Title Appeal No.61 of 1993 on 31.8.1999, intentionally did not put the decree in execution for recovery of 02 decimals of land and after about 4 years i.e in the middle of 2003, they filed an appli­cation before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Chandpur pray­ing that they are in possession of the dis­puted land and so steps should be taken so that leases given to the defendant Nos. 1-4 and Dr. Maniruzzaman be not renewed and the possession of the plaintiffs be also not disturbed and the above inaction of the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for about 4 years show that they colluded with the ministerial staffs of the Office of the defendant No.1 petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Chandpur, so that no steps were taken in filing civil revisional application against the above judgment and decree dated 31.8.1999 passed in Title Appeal No.61 of 1999 and as a result the defendant No. 1 petitioner, being ignorant about result of the said appeal, could not   take any step for filing civil revisional application within time.
 
4. As it appears, the High Court Division rejected the application for condonation of delay holding that the explanations offered for condonation of delay were not   at all satisfactory and further after lapse of about 4 years a vested right has accrued in favour of the plaintiff respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit land and such right can not be taken away unless proper explanation is offered by the petitioner for their inordinate delay in filing, the revisional application; though the defendant/petitioner was a contesting party in the above appeal, they kept silent for about 4 years after judgment was passed therein and they suddenly woke up and took steps to obtain the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the above appeal; the statement made by the defendant petitioner in the application for condonation of   delay with regard to date of first correspondence made on 30.8.2003 and the statements made in the said application to the effect that thereafter they obtained the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the above appeal are inconsistent and did not reflect the correct position inas­much as application for certified copy was filed on 11.8.2003, several days before 30.8.2003, which is totally untrue and the defendant petitioner should take guard in future in making such blunt statement in an application filed before the Court; the explanations offered by the defendant petitioner for condonation of inordinance delay of 1529 days in filing the revisional application is not satisfactory and the defendant petitioner being guilty of laches and negligence, are not entitled to any concession.
 
5. Regarding the application filed by the defendant petitioners for hearing of the instant rule along with Civil Revision No. 2648 of 1997, the High Court Division held that unless a Rule is issued condon­ing the delay, no occasion arises for hear­ing this civil revisional application along with Civil Revision No. 2648 of 1997.
 
6. We are of the view that the High Court Division on proper consideration of the evidence and the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. The learned counsel could not point at any illegality or infirmity in the decision of the High Court Division so as to call for any interference.

The petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.