Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 422 of 2000
Judge: Md. Gholam Rabbani,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mr. Fazlul Karim,,
Citation: 53 DLR (AD) (2001) 87
Case Year: 2001
Appellant: Hasan Azam and others
Respondent: Rabeya Khatun and others
Subject: Ex-parte Decree, Procedural Law,
Delivery Date: 2001-1-15
Latifur Rahman, CJ.
Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, J.
Mainur Reza Chowdhury, J.
Md. Gholam Rabbani, J.
Hasan Azam and others........................ Petitioners
Rabeya Khatun and others............... Respondents
January 15, 2001.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The learned judge of the single bench rightly set aside the ex-parte judgment on the grounds of i) prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the time of hearing and ii) for absence of the learned advocate. There is nothing to interfere.
Md. Fazlul Karim, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Nowab Ali, Advocate-on-Record—For the Petitioners.
Not represented—The Respondents.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 422 of 2000.
(From the judgment and order dated 27-7-1999 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 4192 of 1997).
Md. Gholam Rabbani J.
In the absence of the opposite parties Civil Revision No. 4192 of 1997 was disposed of by the High Court Division making the Rule absolute.
2. Thereafter absentee-opposite parties filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the said judgment and ultimately by the judgment and order dated 27-7- 1999 a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division set aside the judgment and order and passed order for rehearing the civil revision.
3. This leave petition is directed against the said judgment and order dated 27-7-1999 It has been urged in support of the leave petition that the said application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was hit by the provision of Chapter X of the High Court Rules and that the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division failed to record his satisfaction about the reason for the absence of the learned Advocate for the opposite parties when the civil revision was called on for hearing. The first ground is too technical to deny the absentee opposite parties from the relief of rehearing the civil revision. With regard to the second ground it is found from the impugned judgment that the learned Judge held that the absentee opposite parties were able to make out a case of being prevented by sufficient causes from appearing at the time of the hearing of the Rule. Therefore, both the grounds agitated in the leave petition are found to be of no substance.
The petition is dismissed.