Md. Shamser Ali another Vs. Md. Shahajahan Ali and others, VII ADC (2010) 343

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.821 of 2009

Judge: Md. Abdul Matin,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Md. Nawab Ali,,

Citation: VII ADC (2010) 343

Case Year: 2010

Appellant: Md. Shamser Ali

Respondent: Md. Shahajahan Ali and others

Subject: Procedural Law,

Delivery Date: 2009-11-19

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Md. Abdul Matin J
ABM Khairul Haque J
 
Md. Shamser Ali another
……………………...Petitioners
Vs.
Md. Shahajahan Ali and others
………………….......Respondents
 
Judgment
November 19, 2009.
 
The present respondent as petitioner instituted the suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises in 1996. The suit was, on transfer, renumbered as S.C.C. suit No. 02 of 2002. In that suit the petitioner filed an application for accepting his written statement in substitution of the previous statement which was said to have been filed by the plaintiffs by using their names. …. (2)
It appears that in a suit instituted in 1996 a similar prayer for substitution of the written statement was filed and rejected by the trial court on 3rd October; 2002 which was affirmed by the High Court Division. Again a similar prayer was repeated and has been rejected upto the High Court Division with good reasons. ..(5)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Not represented- the Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.821 of 2009.
(From the judgment and order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1427 of 2005.)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Abdul Matin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1427 of 2005 discharging the Rule.
 
2. The facts, in short, are that the present respondent as petitioner instituted the suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises in 1996. The suit was, on trans­fer, renumbered as S.C.C. Suit No. 02 of 2002. In that suit the petitioner filed an application for accepting his written state­ment in substitution of the previous state­ment which was said to have been filed by the plaintiffs by using their names. The learned Senior Assistant Judge, rejected the said prayer. The petitioner thereafter unsuccessfully moved the learned District Judge, in revision and thereafter moved the High Court Division without success.
 
3. As against the judgment and order of the High Court Division the petitioners have filed this petition for leave to appeal.
 
4. Heard the learned Advocate-on-Record and perused the petition and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other papers on record.
 
5. It appears that in a suit instituted in 1996 a similar prayer for substitution of the written statement was filed and reject­ed by the trial court on 3rd October, 2002 which was affirmed by the High Court Division. Again a similar prayer was repeated and has been rejected up to the High Court Division with good reasons.
 
We find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
 
Ed.