IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:   

Mr. Justice Rezaul Karim

Civil Revision No. 5257 of 2007

Shafiul Islam

........ Defendant-appellant-petitioner -Versus-

Sree Provat Chandra Barman and others

....... Plaintiff-respondent-opposite parties

No one appears for both sides.

Heard on: 21.06.2026

Judgment on: 23.06.2026

In  the  instant  civil  revisional  application  filed  under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court on 04.11.2007 issued a Rule calling upon the opposite party No. 1 to  show  cause  as  to  why  the  judgment  and  order  dated 17.05.2007  passed  by  the  learned  Additional  District  Judge, Thakurgaon in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04 of 2005 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 04.11.2004  passed  by  the  learned  Senior  Assistant  Judge  (In charge), Thakurgaon in Other Suit No. 10 of 2004 allowing the application should not be set aside.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court passed an interim  order  of  status  quo  in  respect  of  possession  and position of the suit land till disposal of the Rule.

None of the parties has entered appearance in the Rule.

The opposite party as plaintiff filed Other Suit No. 10 of

2004 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Thakurgaon against the petitioner for a decree of permanent injunction in

the following forms:

(L) ¢hh¡c£NZ k¡q¡−a e¡¢mn£ S¢j−a ®hBCe£i¡−h Ae¢dL¡l fË−hn L¢l−a e¡

f¡−l Hhw ab¡ qC−a h¡c£−L ®h-cMm L¢l−a e¡ f¡−le aSSeÉ ¢hh¡c£N−Zl ¢hl²−Ü ¢QlØq¡u£ ¢e−od¡‰¡l ¢X¢H² ¢c−a,

In  the  suit  the  plaintiff  filed  an  application  praying temporary injunction against the defendant till disposal of the

suit in the following forms:

Aœ ®j¡LŸj¡ Qm¡L¡m£e AhØq¡u k¡q¡−a h¡c£fr e¡¢mn£ ¢ejÀagn£m h¢ZÑa S¢j−a ®hBCe¢i¡−h Ae¢dL¡l fË−hn L¢l−a e¡ f¡−l Hhw ab¡ qC−a h¡c£fr−L ®hcMm L¢l−a e¡ f¡−l h¡ e¡¢mn£ S¢jl BL«¢a fËL«¢a f¢lhaÑe L¢l−a e¡ f¡−l h¡ ab¡u ®L¡e fËL¡l Nªq¡c£ ¢ejÑ¡Z L¢l−a e¡ f¡−l a‹eÉ a¡q¡−cl ¢hl²−Ü AØq¡u£ J A¿¹haÑ£L¡m£e ¢e−od¡‘¡−cn S¡l£ L¢lh¡l ¢e¢jš ¢h¢qa B−cn c¡−e p¤¢hQ¡l L¢l−a j¢SÑ quz

The petitioner as defendant appeared in suit filed written objection  against  the  application  for  injunction  and  also amended  the  written  objection  by  filing  an  amendment application. They also filed written statement on their behalf.

The  trial  Court  heard  the  application  for  temporary injunction and after hearing allowed the same by an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the  plaintiffs  in  his  peaceful  possession  of  the  suit  land  till disposal of suit by its judgment and order dated 04.11.2004.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and  order  of  the  trial  Court  the  defendant  preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2005 before the learned District Judge, Thakurgaon which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Thakurgaon on  transfer who by judgment and order dated 17.05.2007 dismissing the appeal maintaining order of the trial Court.

This revision arises against the judgment and order of the appellate Court below the petitioner filed the instant revision before this Court. At the time of issuance of the Rule this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the possession and position of the suit land till disposal of Rule.

This is a long pending Rule. None took any step to get the rule heard and the matter has been fixed at the instance of the Court. When the matter is taken up for hearing on repeated calls none appeared for any of the parties, consequently the matter is fixed for delivery of judgment today.

Since 2004 order of temporary injunction as well as order of status quo passed by this Court is continuing. While the suit is being disposed of, no one has appraised.

It is fact that the suit is for a simple decree for permanent injunction where in the trial Court as well as appellate Court below concurrently found and observed that the plaintiff is in possession and a prima facie case exists in favour. Resultantly granted temporary injunction. Apart from this at the time of issuance  of  rule  this  Court  has  taken  the  fact  of  concurrent finding  of  both  the  Courts  below  and  instead  of  staying impugned judgment and order of the Courts below only to balance  the  dispute  between  the  parties  directed  both  the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the Rule which is still valid for long 22 years.

In this situation this Court thinks that the Rule may be disposed of maintaining the order of status quo passed by this Court directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit within shortest possible time if the suit is still pending. To ensure ends of justice I am inclined to dispose of the Rule with following direction.

The Rule is disposed of. Order of status quo passed by this  Court  at  the  time  of  issuance  of  the  Rule  shall  be maintained till disposal of the suit.

The trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit within 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order without fail if the suit is still pending for disposal.

Accordingly,  the  Rule  is  made  absolute,  however, without any order as to costs.

Communicate the judgment at once.