Mozibur Rahman Vs. Al-haj Nazrul Karim and others, 17 BLT (AD) (2009) 189

Case No: Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 2136 of 2008

Judge: Mohammad Fazlul Karim ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. S. N. Goswami,,

Citation: 17 BLT (AD) (2009) 189

Case Year: 2009

Appellant: Mozibur Rahman

Respondent: Al-haj Nazrul Karim and others

Subject: Civil Law,

Delivery Date: 2009-04-16

Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Joynul Abedin J
Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J
 
Mozibur Rahman
………….....Petitioner
Vs.
Al-haj Nazrul Karim and others
………….....Respondents
 
Judgment
April 16, 2009.
 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order 39 Rule 1
Counsel’s oral agreement
It appears that since there was nothing in writing before the trial Court about the fact that learned engaged Advocate for defendant Nos. 1 & 2 agreed to the passing of the status-quo order on both sides, the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had legal scope to deny the said fact afterwards. The learned District Judge correctly observed that there was nothing before the Court about the fact that he orally agreed to the passing of status-quo order before the trial Court. Accordingly, the learned District Judge allowed Miscellaneous Appeal setting aside status-quo order dated 1.3.2006  passed by the trial Court. ….. (2)
 
Lawyers Involved:
S. N. Goswami, Advocate, instructed by Mr. Syed Mahbubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioners.
Not represented-For the Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 2136 of 2008.
 
JUDGMENT
 
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J.
 
1. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2177 of 2006 discharging the Rule.
 
2. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused materials on record. It appears that since there was nothing in writing before the trial Court about the fact that learned engaged Advocate for defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed to the passing of the status quo order on both sides, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had legal scope to deny the said fact afterwards. The learned District Judge correctly observed that there was nothing before the Court about the fact that he orally agreed to the passing of status quo order before the trial Court. Accordingly, the learned District Judge allowed Miscellaneous Appeal setting aside status-quo order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the trial Court. If the petitioner has any reason to be aggrieved he could file a fresh application for redress of the same or make a prayer for modification of the order to cope with any eventuality. We do not find any cause to interfere with the impugned order.
 
3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.