Case No: Civil Preview Petition No. 13 of 2005
Judge: Md. Ruhul Amin ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mrs. Sufia Khatun,,
Citation: IV ADC (2007) 862
Case Year: 2007
Appellant: Most. Hamida Bewa
Respondent: Jasiron Nesa and others
Subject: Revisional Jurisdiction, Procedural Law,
Delivery Date: 2005-12-15
Md. Ruhul Amin J
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Most. Hamida Bewa
Jasiron Nesa and others
December 15, 2005.
Seeking declaration of title on respect of the land in suit.... (2)
The settled principle of law is that in the garb of the review a party is not competent to resort to the re-hearing of the appeal..... (2)
S.M. Zillul Haq, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner
Sufi a Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents
Civil Preview Petition No. 13 of 2005.
(From the Judgment and Order dated August 31, 2004 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2000).
Md. Ruhul Amin J.
The petitioner seeks review of the judgment of August 31, 2004 in Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2000 allowing the same. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated July 20, 1999 of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 767 of 1997 making the Rule absolute upon setting aside the judgment and decree dated October 31, 1995 of the 2nd Court of Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), Pabna, in Other Class Appeal No. 206 of 1993 dismissing the same and thereupon affirming the judgment and decree dated August 29, 1993 of the Court of Assistant Judge, Sujanagar in Other Class Suit No. 48 of 1983 dismissing the same.
2. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title in respect of the land in suit. Grounds raised in support of the prayer for review in our view can in no way be considered ground for review. The contentions raised in the grounds have already been considered by this Division while disposing of the appeal. The settled principle of law is that in the garb of the review a party is not competent to resort to the rehearing of the appeal. The grounds raised in the review petition in fact are contrive to have the appeal re-heard, which in law is not permitted or in other words a party is not competent in law to seek review in the manner as sought.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.