Joy Dev Saha & another Vs. Haridas Saha & others, V ADC (2008) 774

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 399 of 2007

Judge: M. M. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Bivash Chandra Biswas,,

Citation: V ADC (2008) 774

Case Year: 2008

Appellant: Joy Dev Saha and another

Respondent: Haridas Saha and others

Delivery Date: 2007-7-22

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin, CJ.
M.M. Ruhul Amin, J.
Md. Hassan Ameen, J.
 
Joy Dev Saha & another
…………….........Petitioners
Vs.
Haridas Saha & others
......................Respondents
 
Judgment
July 22, 2007.
 
The High Court Division observed that from the order book it appears that the notice in From N-10 was served upon the petitioners as per order of the Registrar of the Court dated 28.08.2005 and the Rule was made ready for hearing on 29.08.2005 but on step was taken to engage a new Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. The High Court Division also opined that in the application for restoration it was asserted that the tadbirker Mr. Joydeb Chandra Saha had been bed ridden for about six months and as such, he could not come to Dhaka to take necessary steps after service of notice on From N-10 upon the petitioners. But this assertion does not hold good in that the petitioners slept over the matter even after expiry of six months on the ground of alleged illness of the Tadbirker and no step was taken by the petitioners to engage a new Advocate on their behalf till discharged of the Rule for default on 10.01.2007. … (4)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Bivash Chandra Biswas, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner.  
Not represented- the Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 399 of 2007
(From the judgment and order dated 04.02.2007 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1022 of 1988.)
 
JUDGMENT
 
M. M. Ruhul Amin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2007 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1022 of 1988 discharging the Rule.
 
2. Short facts are that the Rule was discharged for default on 10.01.2007 for non- compliance of Court’s order for taking steps for engaging new Advocate as the Advocate earlier engaged died. It is on record that after the death of engaged Advocate, a notice in From N-10 was served upon the petitioner but the Tadbirkar Mr. Joydev Chandra Saha could not take any step as he was suffering from blood pressure.
 
3. We have heard Mr. Bivash Chandra Biswas, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
 
The High Court Division observed “the order book shows that by the order dated 21.04.2004 a notice in From N-10 was issued upon the petitioners to take necessary steps for engaging a new advocate within six weeks, in default it would be disposed of in accordance with law.” The High Court Division further observed that from the order book it appears that the notice in From N-10 was served upon the petitioners as per order of the Registrar of the Court dated 28.08.2005 and the Rule was made ready for hearing on 29.08.2005 but no step was taken to engage a new Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. The High Court Division also opined that in the application for restoration it was asserted that the tadkbirker Mr. Joydev Chandra Saha had been bed ridden for about six months and as such, he could not come to Dhaka to take necessary steps after service of notice in From N-10 upon the petitioners. But this assertion does not hold good in that the petitioners slept over the matter even after expiry of six months on the ground of alleged illness of the Tadbirkar and no step was taken by the petitioners to engage a new Advocate on their behalf till discharge of the Rule for default on 10.01.2007.
 
4. The High Court Division accordingly declined to consider the application for restoration of the Rule.
 
In view of the discussions made above, we are of view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same.
 
Accordingly, the leave petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.