Saeeda Yasmin and others Vs. Capital Service Center Ltd and others, 57 DLR (AD) (2005) 189

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 956 of 2003

Judge: Md. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Citation: 57 DLR (AD) (2005) 189

Case Year: 2005

Appellant: Saeeda Yasmin and others

Respondent: Capital Service Center Ltd and others

Subject: Procedural Law,

Delivery Date: 2005-6-29

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin J
MM Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tofazzul Islam J 
 
Saeeda Yasmin and others
..............................Petitioners
Vs.
Capital Service Center Ltd and others
………………….Respondents 
 
Judgment
June 29, 2005.
 
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)
Section 115 
Judicial order of a court should be speaking assigning the reason of arriving at the decision taken. In spite of that even if the order itself be not elaborate or speaking but if the decision is taken is proper, the order passed is sustainable.
 
Lawyers Involved: 
AM Mahbubuddin, Advocate (appeared with the leave of the Court) instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate‑on‑Record‑For the Petitioners.
M Saleem Ullah, Advocate, instructed by Sufia Khatun, Advocate‑on‑Record‑For Respondent No. 1.
Not represented‑Respondent Nos. 2‑4.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 956 of 2003.
(From the Judgment and Order dated February 5, 2003 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 235 of 2002). 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Ruhul Amin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of February 5, 2003 of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 235 of 2002 discharging the Rule which was obtained impugning the order dated 8‑11‑2001 (Order No. 43 dated 8‑11‑2001) of the 1st Court of Joint District Judge, Dhaka passed in Title Suit No. 225 of 1998 allowing the prayer for amendment of the plaint. The High Court Division discharged the Rule on the finding since the learned Joint District Judge on consideration of the application for amendment of the plaint and the objection filed thereto as well as the other materials has quite correctly found that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit and that on consideration of the materials on record we are also of the view no interference is called for with the order of the learned Joint District Judge allowing the prayer for amendment of the plaint. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the trial Court allowing the prayer for amendment of the plaint is cryptic and that lacks reasoning and, as such, the High Court Division was in serious error in maintaining the order which is not speaking and that reasoning in support of the order is absent.
 
2. The order of the trial Court as well as of the High Court Division is not an elaborate one assigning reasoning in detail in support of the orders so passed. The law is now settled that merely because an order of a Court is not an elaborate one or that is not speaking one as should have been but for that the same is not liable to be set aside if on consideration of the materials on record it is seen that the order so passed is sustainable. We have perused the plaint sought to be amended and the application filed seeking amendment of the plaint as well as the other materials on record. The amendment so sought in major part is formal one and the rest is elaboration of the facts already averred in the plaint.
 
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner felt difficulty to point out that incorporation or deletion of the facts stated in the application seeking amendment of the plaint in what respect and how it will change the nature and character of the suit. 
 
4. On consideration of the materials on record i.e. the plaint sought to be amended and the application filed seeking amendment of the plaint, we are of the view that insertion of the facts sought to be inserted will not change the nature and character of the suit, which is a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of land, as such, the High Court Division was not in error in maintaining the order of the trial Court allowing the prayer for amendment. 
 
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.