Md. Tazuddin and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 2 LNJ (2013) 365

Case No: Civil Revision No. 2519 of 1999

Judge: Md. Ruhul Quddus,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali,,

Citation: 2 LNJ (2013) 365

Case Year: 2013

Appellant: Md. Tazuddin and others

Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and others

Delivery Date: 2011-03-30

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL)
 
Mr. Justice Md. Ruhul Quddus, J.

Judgment
30.3.2011
 
Md. Tazuddin and others
...Petitioners
-Versus-
Government of Bangladesh and others
...Opposite Parties
 
 
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Order XI, Rule 14
For the non-production of the documents by the defendants in support of their case, they will have to face the legal consequence of withholding the documents, if those are relevant at all. In a suit for perpetual injunction the moot question is whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession over the suit land. In some cases the prima facie title can incidentally be looked into. In such view of the matter, the documents sought to be produced are not relevant to decide the issue in the present suit for perpetual injunction. . . . (8)

Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali, Senior Advocate
...For the petitioners

Ms. Nowazish Ara Begum, A.A.G.
 ...For the opposite parties

Civil Revision No. 2519 of 1999
 
JUDGMENT
Md. Ruhul Quddus, J:
 
This Rule, at the instance of the plaintiffs, was issued on an application under section 115 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to examine the legality of order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the Assistant Judge, Shibpur, Narshingdhi in Title Suit No.3 of 1998 rejecting their application under Order XI rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction upon the defendants to produce certain documents. 
 
Facts relevant for disposal of the Rule are that the petitioners as plaintiffs instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against the Government and its officials in Narshingdi on the averments inter alia, that they (plaintiffs) are the lawful owners-in-possession of the suit land, which is their only homestead. The defendants initiated L. A. Case No.2/1996-97 for acquisition of the land without following the legal procedures and service of statutory notices. They (plaintiffs) had filed written objection to the Deputy Commissioner, but without disposing of their written objection, the officials attempted to evict them from the suit land by deploying police force on 25.1.1998 giving rise to the suit for perpetual injunction.
 
The defendants were contesting the suit by filing two sets of written statement denying the material facts of the plaint contending inter alia, that the suit land had been acquisitioned as per provision of law and it became the property of Social Welfare Department. The Public Works Department already started construction of a Training and Rehabilitation Center thereon for socially retarded women. The notices under articles 3, 6 and 7 of the Acquisition and Requisition of the Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 were duly served and some of the plaintiffs received the same.  Beside, the suit was not maintainable as being bared by law.
 
On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues and proceeded with trial. At one stage, the plaintiffs filed an application before the trial Court on 7.7.1999 under Order XI rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction upon the defendants to produce the documents namely certified copy of a revisional application filed in the High Court Division by the defendants and proof of deposition of compensation money by the requiring authority. The learned Assistant Judge heard the application and rejected the same by his order dated 7.7.1999. The plaintiffs moved in this Court challenging the said order, obtained the Rule and an order staying all further proceedings in the suit.
 
Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the documents mentioned in the plaintiffs’ application are necessary for resolving the issues involved in the suit, but the learned Assistant Judge without assigning any reason, has rejected the plaintiffs’ application by a non-speaking order, which is no order in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned order being bad in law is liable to be set aside and the application should be disposed of on merit to meet the ends of justice.
 
On the other hand Mrs. Nowazish Ara Begum, the learned Assistant Attorney General appearing for the opposite parties submits that in view of article 42 of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 the suit itself is not maintainable. This is the settled principle of law that the plaintiffs are to prove their own case by adducing evidence oral and documentary, she argues. If the defendants fail to produce any documents in support of their case, they will face its legal consequence and the plaintiffs will get benefit from such nonproduction and therefore, they should not have any grievance, if the documents are not produced.
 
I have perused the revisional applicat-ion, gone through the impugned order and considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the parties. It appears that the suit was at concluding stage and fixed for argument. The trial Court rejected the application to avoid the delay in disposal of the suit and passed its order on the reasons that there is no mention of any civil revision in the written statements, and that if the defendants do not produce any relevant document, their claim may not be accepted. Therefore, the said order cannot be termed as a non-speaking one.
 
If the defendants do not produce documents in support of their case, they will face the legal consequence for withholding the documents, if those are relevant at all. But in a suit for perpetual injunction the moot question is whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession over the suit land. In some cases the prima facie title can incidentally be looked into. In that view of the matter the documents, sought to be produced, are not relevant to decide the issue in the present suit for perpetual injunction.  
 
For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly the Rule is discharged, however, without any order as to costs.
 
Communicate a copy of this judgment at once.  
 
Ed.