IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

APPELLATE DIVISION

     PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain

Chief Justice

Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider

Ms. Justice Zinat Ara

Mr. Justice Abu Bakar Siddiquee

             Mr. Justice Md. Nuruzzaman                    

CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS.2050 & 2319  OF 2017.

(From the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2016 passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal Nos.264 and 374 of 2015.)

Kazi Rafiqul Islam:

Md. Anwar Hossain Advocate and another

=Versus=

Md. Anwar Hossain Advocate

 and another

Kazi Rafiqul Islam and another

Petitioner.

(In C.P. No.2050/17) Petitioners

(In C.P. No.2319/17)

Respondent. (In C.P. No.2050/17)

Respondent. (In C.P. No.2319/17)

For the Petitioner : (In C.P.No.2050/17)

For the petitioner: (In C.P. No.2319/17)

For the Respondents: (In C.P.No.2050/17)

For the Respondent: (In C.P. No.2319/17)

Mr.  Shaheedul  Islam, Advocate, instructed by Mrs. Madhumaloti Chowdhury Barua, Advocate-on-Record.

Mr.  Mustafizur  Rahman, Advocate, instructed by Mrs. Mahmuda  Begum,  Advocate-on- Record.

Mr.  Mustafizur  Rahman, Advocate, instructed by Mrs. Mahmuda  Begum,  Advocate-on- Record.

Mr.  Shaheedul  Islam, Advocate, instructed by Mrs. Madhumaloti Chowdhury Barua, Advocate-on-Record.

Date of hearing and judgment  : 09-12-2018

J U D G M E N T

Hasan Foez Siddique, J: These two petitions for leave to appeal Nos.2050 of 2017 and 2319 of 2017 are directed against the judgment and decree

dated 16.06.2016 passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal No.264 of 2015 heard analogously with First Appeal No. 374 of 2015 affirming those dated 15.06.2015 passed by the Additional Joint District Judge, Comilla in Title Suit No.02 of 2014.

The relevant facts, for disposal of these petitions, are that Md. Anowar Hossain, Advocate and his wife, petitioners of C.P. No.2319 of 2017 filed Title Suit No.02 of 2014 in the Court of Additional Joint District Judge, Comilla for specific performance of contract and compensation against the petitioner of C.P. No.2050 of 2017, who is also respondent of C.P. No.2319 of 2017,

stating, inter alia, that defendant No.1, being the owner in possession of the suit property, proposed to sell the same at a consideration of tk.1,05,00,000/- on 18.11.2009 to the plaintiff No.1 in presence of witnesses and, the plaintiff No.1, on 19.11.2009, paid a sum of tk.25,00,000/- through cheque and, accordingly, the defendant No.1 executed and registered an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiffs. There was an stipulation in the agreement that the defendant No.1 would execute and register sale deed within six months on receipt of the balance consideration money from the plaintiff No.1 and, in default, the plaintiffs would be entitled to take recourse of law for enforcement of contract. Soon after execution of the agreement for sale, the defendant No.1 went to perform hajj. The plaintiffs issued legal notice on 09.05.2010 to the defendant No.1 for execution and registration of sale deed on receipt of balance consideration money but defendant No.1, without paying any heed, attempted to transfer the suit property to a Developer Company. In such situation, the plaintiffs again issued a legal notice on 06.03.2011. On 15.04.2011, the plaintiff No.1 approached the defendant No.1 in presence of witnesses at his residence to execute and register sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration which was not adhered to by the defendant No.1 which constrained the plaintiffs to file instant suit for specific performance of contract and compensation.

The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement contending, inter alia, that he constructed a four storied building spending taka 1,00,00,000/- . He took loan of tk. 10,00,000/- on 21.08.1994 from Agrani Bank (the bank) by mortgaging the suit property. He failed to repay the bank loan within time and the bank, filing Artha Rin Suit No.15 of 2003, obtained a decree for taka 42,00,000/-. Thereafter, the bank, for realization of decretal dues, filed Execution Case No.96 of 2005. The Plaintiff No.1 was engaged  by the defendant No.1 as lawyer for conducting that case on his behalf.  The plaintiff No.1 demanded fees of taka 15,00,000/- from the defendant No.1 for conducting the case assuring him that he would take step to get order from the Court to pay the decretal dues by way of installment  exonerating the interest.  The defendant No.1, having agreed thereto, obtained loan of a sum of taka 25,00,000/- from the plaintiff No.1 with the condition that after getting order of exoneration of interest, the defendant No.1 would repay the loan amount. Accordingly, receiving tk.25,00,000/- from plaintiff No.1 through cheque, the defendant No.1 paid taka 15,00,000/- to the plaintiff and spent rest amount for his personal necessity. The plaintiff No.1 was entrusted to prepare an agreement accordingly. The defendant No.1 executed  the same on 19.11.2009 having prepared by the plaintiff No.1 which was registered. The defendant No.1 never agreed to transfer the suit

The trial Court decreed the suit in part. It decreed the suit so far the same relates to specific performance of contract with a direction to the plaintiff to pay the rest consideration of taka 80,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 but it dismissed the suit so for the same relates to the prayer for compensation.

Against the said judgment and decree, defendant Kazi Rafiqul Islam preferred First Appeal No.264 of 2015 and plaintiff Anowar Hossain filed First Appeal No.374 of 2015 in the High Court Division. The High Court Division heard both First Appeals together and by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed both the appeals. Thus, defendant Kazi Rafiqul Islam has filed civil petition for leave to appeal No.2050 of 2017 and plaintiff Md. Anwar Hossain and another have filed civil petition for leave to appeal No.2319 of 2017 in this Division.

Mr. Shaheedul Islam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.P. 2050 of 2017 and respondent in C.P. 2319 of 2017, submits that admittedly the defendant was the client of the plaintiff No.1, an Advocate of Comilla District Bar Association, who taking opportunity of the weakness of his client the defendant No.1, managed to get the fraudulent and collusive agreement for sale, thereby, instituted the instant suit for getting decree for specific performance of contract inasmuch as the same is an equitable relief and that the plaintiffs sought for relief with uncleaned hands, the High Court Division erred in law in not dismissing the suit.

Mr. Mustafizur Rahman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C.P. 2319 of 2017 and the respondents in C.P. 2050 of 2017, submits that the subject matter of present suit and the case, for which plaintiff No.1, was engaged as Lawyer of the defendant No.1 are not the same. He submits that in order to pay the decretal dues of the Artha Rin Suit, the defendant No.1 proposed to sell the property, in question, and, accordingly, he came to an agreement to transfer of the suit land at a

consideration of taka 1,05,00,000/- and receiving a sum of taka 25,00,000/-, he executed and registered an agreement for sale on 19.11.2009 and that there was stipulation in the agreement that the defendant No.1 would pay compensation if he fails to execute and register the sale deed pursuant to the agreement for sale within the stipulated time. The defendant No.1 failed to execute and register the sale deed within the time stipulated inasmuch as the plaintiffs offered the rest consideration money in time as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the Courts below rightly decreed the prayer for specific performance of contract but erroneously dismissed the prayer so far the same relates to prayer for compensation.

Since both the parties are present in this Court and the learned Advocates of the parties made their lengthy submissions we have decided to dispose of both the petitions finally. 

Admittedly, the property, in question, belonged to the defendant No.1. It is also admitted that the plaintiff No.1 was the engaged Advocate of the defendant No.1 for conducting his Artha Rin Execution case. The plaintiff No.2 is the wife of the plaintiff No.1. The instant agreement for sale was executed and registered on 19.11.2009. The contents of the same were as follows:

                Ò wØ-cvw¶K evqbv Pzw³cÎ

 †gvt Av‡bvqvi †nv‡mb, G¨vW‡fv‡KU wcZv g„Z †gvt BQgBj †nv‡mb, gvZv †gvmvg¥r Kvwdqv LvZzb, †ckv-AvBbRxwe, ag© Bmjvg, RvZxqZv evsjv‡`kx, 2) ‰Qq`v bvwn`v

Av³vi , wcZv g„Z ˆQq` Ave`yj gvbœvb, cwZ †gvt Av‡bvqvi †nv‡mb, G¨vW‡fv‡KU, ag© Bmjvg, RvZxqZv evsjv‡`kx, me© mvwKb- kªxgš—cyi, †cvt Avng¥`bMi, m`i `w¶Y

†cŠimfv, _vbv- mv‡eK †KvZqvjx nv‡j m`i `w¶Y, †Rjv-Kzwgj−v, nvj wVKvbv- g‡bvnicyi, cªKv‡k¨ †`IqvjxcwÆ, ivRMÄ, _vbv- †KvZqvjx, ‡cŠimf -wmwU t Kzwgj−v|

----- 1g c¶/ evqbvcÎ `wjj MªwnZvMY|

KvRx iwdKzj Bmjvg, wcZv g„Z KvRx Ave` jy gwR` gvóvi,vZv g„Z Av‡gbv †eMg, mvwKb kªxcyi (KvRx evox) WvKNi- †PŠÏMvg, _vbv- †PŠÏMªvg, †Rjv- Kzwgj−v| kn‡ii wVKvbvt †nvwìs bs- 390 ivbxi w`Nxi `w¶Y c~e© cvov, _vbv- †KvZqvjx, †Rjv- Kzwgj−v|

                ------- 2q c¶ /evqbvcÎ `wjj `vZv|

Km¨ n¯ v— š i— ‡hvM¨ w¯’wZevb ivqZx¯^‡Z¡i gvwjKxq `Ljxq emZevox I Z w¯nZ` PviZjv

wewkó cyivZb AvevwmK `vjvbM„n hveZxq wdwUs wdKðvm© cqcªYvjx I we`¨gvb c_vwaKvi

Ges hveZxq nK û°zg m‡gZ weµq eve` wØcvw¶K evqbv Pzw³cÎ wg`s Kvh©vÂv‡M GB

†h, wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË mg‡Z Acivci eû weË m¤úwˇZ †Rjv- Kzwgj−v, _vbv- †KvZqvjx, ciMYv- †g‡niKzj kni+ †cŠimfv+ †Rjv- Kzwgj−v Aš—MZ© g‡bvnicyi †gŠRvw¯nZ cªKv‡k¨ ivbxi w`Nxi c~e© `w¶Y †KvYvw¯nZ g„Z e¼ P›`ª fÆvPv‡h©i cyÎ

D‡c›`ª P›`ª fÆvPvh©¨ gvwjK `LjKvi _vKve¯nvq 1947 Bs m‡b fviZel© wef³ nBqv wn›`y¯nvb I cvwK¯ v— b bv‡g `yBwU ivóª m„wRZ nIqvq Z`vwbš— b— wnwoK Abyhvqx wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwËi g~j gvwjK H D‡c›`ª P›`ª fÆvPvh©¨ fvi‡Zi evwm›`v g„Z

Av³vi“¾vgv‡bi cyÎ †gvt Avjx wgqvi fviZxq m¤úwËi mwnZ wewbgq  Kwi‡j H wewbg‡qi gg© g‡Z H †gvt Avjx wgqv wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË  gZ Zvnvi mwnZ wewbgqKvix D‡c›`ª P›`ª fÆvPv‡h©¨i gvwjKxq `Ljxq wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË m‡gZ Acivci eû weË¡ m¤úwˇZ gvwjK `LjKvi  envj ejer nBqv h‡_”Pvfv‡e h_v‡hvM¨fv‡e †fvM `Lj Kwiqv Avwm‡Z _vKve¯nvq Zvnvi UvKvi Avek¨KZvq Ave`yj jwZd, wcZv g„Z nvRx Pv›` wgqv, mvwKb weòcyi, _vbv- †KvZqvjx Ges wQwÏKzi ingvb, wcZv nvRx Avjx AvKei, mvwKb- ivgP›`cyi, _vbv- †PŠÏMªvg, †Rjv- Kzwgj−v bvgxq e¨w³e‡M©i wbKU Kzwgj−v 3q R‡q›U mve †iwRwóª Awd‡m weMZ 30/7/1966Bs Zvwi‡L 1bs ewni 49 bs evjvg 27-29 bs c„ôvq wjwcK…Z †iwRwóªK„Z 5248 bs mvdKejv

`wjj gy‡j weµq Kwiqv `Lj Ac©b Kwiqv w`‡j H Ave`yj jwZd I wQwÏKzi ingvb wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË m‡gZ Acivci m¤úwˇZ gvwjK `LjKvi envj I ejer nBqv wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ h‡_”Pvfv‡e †fvM `Lj Kwiqv Avwm‡Z _vKve¯nvq Zvnv‡`i UvKvi Avek¨KZvq Kzwgj−v m`i hyM¥ mve- †iwRwóª Awd‡m weMZ 27/01/1979Bs  Zvwi‡L

802 bs mvd Kejv `wjj g~‡j wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË m‡gZ Acivci eû weË m¤úwË Avwg AÎ evqbvcÎ `vZv I Avgvi ˆR¨ô åvZv KvRx bRi“j Bmjv‡gi ¯¿x †K,Gg, Rvnvbviv †eM‡gi wbKU weµq Kwiqv `Ljvc©b Kwiqv w`‡j Avgiv wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË m‡gZ Acivci Lwi`v m¤úwˇZ gvwjK `LjKvi nB, _vwK I AvwQ| GLv‡b cªKvk _vKv Avek¨K †h, wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË m‡gZ Avgv‡`i Acivci Lwi`v m¤úwË eve‡Z Kzwgj−vi gvbbxq AwZwi³ †Rjv cªkvmK †iwfwbD I Kvw÷wWqvb Bwbwg, †f‡óU I bb- †iwm‡W›U cªcvwU© weMZ 17/02/1972 Bs Zvwi‡L Kzwgj−vi m`i mve †iwRwóª Awd‡m 1152 bs `wjj m¤úv`b I †iwR‡óªkb Kwiqv w`‡qwQj| Lwi`g~‡j gvwjK `LjKvi envj ejer nBqv h‡_”Qvfv‡e h_v‡hvM¨g‡Z †fvM`Lj Kwiqv Avwm‡Z _vKve¯nvq Avgv‡`i ‡fvM `L‡ji myweav‡_© Avwg I Avgvi åvZvi ¯¿x †K,Gg, Rvnvbviv †eMg Kzwgj−vi m`i hyM¥ mve †iwRwóª Awd‡m 13/07/1979Bs Zvwi‡L 4206 bs

e›Ubbvgv `wjj m¤úv`b I †iwR‡óªkb KivBqv †bB Ges H e›Ubbvgv `wj‡ji gg©g‡Z

Ges Avgv‡`i  ga¨Kvi fvM-e›Ub Abyhvqx wbg¥  Zdwm‡jv³m¤úwË I Zrmshy³ K‡ZKvs‡k H 9' dzU cªk¯’ I K‡ZKvs‡k 12 dzU cªk¯n wewkóª cª‡ek I evwni nIqvi GRgvwj I (Common) c‡_i f~wg I c_vwaKvi m‡gZ hveZxq ¯^˦ Avgvi GKK Qvnvgfz³ nB‡j Avwg wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË eve‡Z wbR bv‡g miKvix ivR¯^ wefv‡M bvgRvix LwZqvb Ges ¯nvbxq †cŠimfvi †cŠi †nvwìs †LvjvBqv LvRbv ivR¯^ h_vixwZ cwi‡kva Kwiqv Ges wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË eve‡Z †cŠimf nB‡Z eûZj `vjvb wbg©v‡bi bKv«v Aby‡gv`b KivBqv wbg¥ Zcwm‡jv³ m¤úwˇZ PviZ wewkóª AvevwmK M„n wbg©vb Kwiqv Øv`k e‡l©i eû Da©Kvj e¨wcqv †`k, `k, miKvi me© mavi‡bi Ávb‡Mv‡Qi g‡Z I ¯^xK…Z g‡Z wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË h‡_”Qvfv‡e h_v hvM¨g‡Z †fvM `Lj Kwiqv Avwm‡ZwQ| GB ¶‡b AMªbx e¨vsK g‡bvnicyi kvLvq F‡bi UvKv I Ab¨vb¨ Avgvi `vq

†`bv cwi‡kva, †Q‡j-†g‡q‡`i wk¶v-`x¶v wbe©vn I Ab¨vb¨ Avek¨Kxq Kvh©vw` m¤úv`‡bi wbwg‡Ë¦ bM` UvKvi Avek¨K nIqvq Ges UvKv msMª‡ni Ab¨ †Kv‡bv Dcvq bv cvBqv Avgvi gvwjKxq `Ljxq wbg¥ Zcwm‡jv³ m¤úwË I Z`w¯nZ `vjvbM„n weµq Kivi

cªKvk I cªPvi Kwi‡j Avcbviv AÎ evqbv MªwnZvMY D³ wel‡q AewnZ nBqv wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË Lwi` Kwi‡Z B”QyK nBqv AvMvBqv Avmvq Avj c Av‡j Pbvi gva¨‡g mv¶xM‡bi †gvKv‡ejvq wbg¥  Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË m‡gZ `vjvbM„n wdwUs wdKðvm© c_vwaKvi BZ¨vw`i g~j¨ gs 1,05,00,000/- (GK †KvwU cvuP j¶) UvKv Avcbviv AÎ evqbvPzw³  MªwnZvMY I Avwg evqbv `vZvi g‡a¨ myw¯ni  g~j¨ mve¨¯nµ‡g A`¨ ¯^v¶xM‡bi †gvKvwejvq gyj¨v›`‡i Avcwb 1bs MªwnZv KZ…©K Kzwgj−vi BASIC BANK

LIMITED Gi cwiPvwjZ PjwZ wnmve bs- 1750-05-0000291 Gi †PK bs cab

4840622 Gi Øviv I gva¨‡g gs 25,00,000/-( cuwPk j¶) UvKv eyS c«‡eva cvBqv ¯^xKvi I Aw½Kvi Kwi‡ZwQ †h, A`¨ nB‡Z 6 gvm Z_v 180 (GKkZ) w`b mgq - mxgvi

g‡a¨ eµx cY g~j¨ gs 80,00,000/- ( Avwk j¶) UvKv msMªn Kwiqv Avcbviv evqbv

MªnxZvMY hLbB Avgv‡K Zje Kwi‡eb ZLbB Avwg Avcbv‡`i wbKU nB‡Z eµx g~j¨ gs 80,00,000/- (Avwk j¶) UvKv eywSqv wbqv wewµZ m¤úwË eve‡Z Avcbv‡`i eive‡i m¤úwË Z`w¯nZ `vjvbM„‡ni m‡iRwg‡b Lvwj I Lvm `Lj Vacant Possession (we`¨gvb fvovwUqv mivBqv w`qv) Avcbvw`M‡K eySvBqv w`‡Z eva¨ _vwKe| e¨_©Zvq Avcbviv AÎ evqbv M«nxZvMY Avgvi wei“‡× †`Iqvbx Av`vj‡Z Kejv c Iqvi bvwjk Kwiqv wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË eve‡Z Av`vjZ †hv‡M mvd Kejv nvwmj Kwiqv m‡iRwg‡b `Lj Mªnb Kwi‡Z cvwi‡eb| Bnv‡Z Avwg wKsev Avgvi AeZ©gv‡b Avgvi fvex Ijx IqvwikMY †Kv‡bv IRi AvcwË Kwi‡Z cvwi‡ebv, Kwi‡j me©v`vj‡Z me©ve¯nvq AMªvn¨ I evwZj ewjqv cwiMwbZ nB‡e Ges Zreve‡Z Avcbv‡`i hveZxq ¶wZ I

Li‡Pi Rb¨ Avwg `vqx _vwK| Avwg AÎ evqbvcÎ `vZv AviI Aw½Kvi Kwi‡ZwQ †h, eZ©gv‡b evqbvK…Z m¤úwˇZ cª‡ek, evwni I PjvP‡ji Rb¨Aaybvg„Z †K,Gg, Rvnvbvivv †eM‡gi Iqvwik cyÎ Kb¨v KvRx Kvgvj †bIqvR Ms‡`i gvwjKvbvaxb mv‡eK Gm,G, 893 I 894 `v‡Mi f~wgi Dci w`qv DËi- `w¶‡Y j¤^vjw¤^ 9' dzU cª¯’ iv¯ v— we`¨gvb Av‡Q Ges H PjvP‡ji iv¯ v— fwel¨‡Z A_©vr AÎ evqbvq D‡j−wLZ †gqv‡`i Aš Z— `yB

gvm c~‡e© Avwg H KvRx Kvgvj †bIqvR Ms‡`i mwnZ Av‡cv‡l mywPwn“Z I wbi“ cZ

Kwiqv Gm,G, 893 I 894 `v‡Mi cwðg As‡k DËi `w¶‡Y I c~e©-cwð‡g 9' cª¯’ wewkó. iv¯ v— Avcbv‡`i evqbvK…Z wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwËi mwnZ mshy³ Kwiqv mywPwn“Z Kwiqv w`‡Z eva¨ _vwKe| D‡j−wLZ g‡Z †gqv` g‡a¨ PjvP‡ji iv¯ v— mywPwn“Z Kwiqv w`‡Z e¨_© Bn‡j wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË w¯niK…Z I mg¥Z gyj¨ 1,05,00,000/- ( GK

†KvwU cuvP j¶) UvKv nB‡Z Avwg gs 20,00,000/- ( wek j¶ ) UvKv Kg (Less )

wbqv evqbvK…Z wbg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË eve‡Z Avcbv‡`i eive‡i mvd Kejv m¤úv`b Kwi.hv w`‡Z eva¨ _vwKe| e¨_©Zvq evqbvi †gqv` DIx©‡Y© Avcbvw`M‡K GKKvjxb 12,00,000/- (evi j¶) UvKv ¶wZc~iY Ges cieZx©‡Z cªwZw`‡bi Rb¨ ‰`wbK 10,000/- (`k nvRvi) UvKv nv‡i ¶wZc~iY m‡gZ evqbv eveZ MwnZ mgy`q UvKv Avcbvw`M‡K Zje gvÎ †dir w`‡Z eva¨ _vwKe|

GZØv‡_© †¯^”Qvq ¯^Áv‡b A‡b¨i webv cª‡ivPbvq †jLK wbhy³ Kwiqv mswk−ó mKj `wjjvw` mieivn Kwiqv cª‡qvRbxq w`K wb‡`©kbv w`qv AÎ mvdKejv `wjj †jLvBqv UvBc KivBqv ¯^h¦s cvV Kwiqv I ˆRô cyÎ KvRx BkivK‡K w`qv cvV KivBqv ïwbqv eywSqv hveZxq weeiY ï× ¯^xKv‡i evqbvq ¯^v¶xM‡bi †gvKv‡ejvq AÎ evqbv `wjj

m¤úv`b Kwiqv w`jvg| Ó

It appears from the contents of the agreement for sale that apart from the agreement for sale of the suit property the same was also in respect of some lands of plots No.893 and 894 which belongs to Kazi Kamal Newaz and others. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 has/ had no title to and possession in the land of those two plots. As per terms and conditions as agreed by the parties in the agreement for sale is that a road has to be constructed in the land of those two plots. It was also agreed that, in case of failure to get the said land by the defendant No.1 from its owners Kazi Kamal Newaz and others, he would not  receive a sum of tk. 20,00,000/- from the plaintiffs from the agreed consideration. That is, tk.20,00,000/- would be deducted from the agreed consideration inasmuch as tk.1,05,00,000/- was settled as consideration of the property to be sold.  

 Since the plaintiff No.1 was engaged Advocate of the defendant No.1 conducting his case it was ethically unacceptable to make such type of agreement with his client. It is highly deplorable to read and consider the evidence of the defendant No.1 adduced against his engaged learned Lawyer who in evidence has said:

Ò AÎ gvgjvi 1bs ev`x †gvt Av‡bvqvi †nv‡mb Avgvi AvZ¥xq nq| Zvi

mv‡_ Avgvi fvj m¤úK© wQj| wZwb Avgvi cªwZ‡ekx| wZwb G¨vW‡fv‡KU weavq Avgvi 96/2006 Rvix gvgjv †kl K‡i w`‡eb e‡j `vwqZ¡ wb‡Z Pvb| wZwb Avgv‡K e‡jwQ‡jb †h, e¨vs‡Ki mv‡_ Av‡cvl K‡i ev cª‡qvR‡b gnvgvb¨ nvB‡Kv‡U© ixU gvgjv K‡i my` gvd Kwiqv Avb‡eb| Ges Avmj F‡bi UvKv wKw¯— Kwiqv w`‡eb| wewbg‡q Zv‡K Avgvi c‡bi j¶ UvKv w`‡Z

n‡e| Avwg Zvi cª¯ v— ‡e ivRx nB| Avgvi Kv‡Q UvKv bv _vKvq A wg Zvi Kv‡Q cuwPk j¶ UvKv nIjvZ PvB| wZwb UvKv nvIjvZ w`‡Z ivRx nb| wZwb Avgv‡K †ewmK e¨vs‡Ki Zvi GKvD›U †_‡K cuwPk j¶ UvKvi †PK

†`q| H †PK g~‡j Avwg Zvi KvQ †_‡K cuwPk j¶ UvKv nvIjvZ †bB| †mLvb †_‡K Avwg Zv‡K c‡bi j¶ UvKv w`B| evKx `k j¶ UvKv Avgvi Kv‡Q ivwL| Av‡bvqvi mv‡ne Zvici wKw¯ i— Rb¨ hyM¥ †Rjv RR, 1g Av`vj‡Z `iLv¯— †`b| ZLb Avwg †`‡k wQjvg| Gi c‡i Avwg n‡R¡ †M‡j wZwb e¨vs‡Ki Gg,wW, eive‡i `iLv¯— K‡ib| Avgv‡`i †`qv UvKvi wmwKDwiwU wn‡m‡e wZwb Avgvi Kv‡Q †`okZ UvKvi AwjwLZ óv‡¤ú ¯^v¶i †bb| óv¤úwU †iwRwóª nq bvB| Avwg bvwjkx m¤úwË weµ‡qi e¨vcv‡i ev`xi

mv‡_ †Kvb evqbvcÎ Kwi bvB óv¤úwU wQj UvKvi wmwKDwiwU| ó¨v¤ú †Kbv †_‡K hveZxq KvR Av‡bvqvi mv‡ne K‡ib| ¯^v¶i cª`vb Kiv Qvov Avwg Avi †Kvb KvR Kwi bvB| ev`xi mv‡_ Avgvi bvwjkx evox weµxi e¨vcv‡i †Kvb K_v evZ©v nq bvB| ev`xi mv‡_ Avgvi bvwjkx evox weµxi e¨vcv‡i †Kvb K_vevZ©v nq bvB| ev`xi mv‡_ Avgvi bvwjkx m¤úwË evwoi weµq g~j¨ mve¨¯n nq bvB| g~‡j¨i UvKv Av›`‡i Avwg evqbv eve` †Kvb UvKv wbB bvB| bvwjkx evqbv cÎwU Avgvi K_vq †jLv nq bvB Ges Avg i †gvKv‡ejvq †jLv nq bvB| evqbvcÎwU Avgv‡K cvV K‡i ïbv‡bv nq bvB ev Avwg wb‡RI c‡o †`wL bvB| evqbv cÎ wn‡m‡e Kw_Z `wj‡j Avwg ¯^v¶i Kwi bvB| gymvwe`v KviK Rqbvj Av‡e`xb Avgvi K_vq gymvwe`v K‡ib bvB| Kw¤úDUvi UvBwcó Rwmg DwÏb Av‡bvqvi mv‡n‡ei †P¤^v‡i UvBwcó 1 b¤^i m¦v¶x  Avgvi †Q‡j KvRx BkivK †bIqvR I 3bs ¯^v¶x KvRx BkwZqvK †bIqvR Avgvi †Q‡j Zvi †Kvb ¯^v¶iB K‡ib bvB| Zv‡`i‡K ¯^v¶x †`Lv‡bv n‡q‡Q|Ó

Such allegations brought by the defendant No.1  against his own engaged Lawyer are unfortunate and not, in any way, appreciatable. A Lawyer is needed not only to bolster the image of the Lawyers and judiciary in the eye of the litigants, but also to sustain the culture of integrity, virtue and ethics among the Lawyers. The credibility of the Lawyers is often undermined by such type of isolated activities.

 The grant of decree of specific performance of contract is discretion of the Court and one cannot claim the decree for specific performance as a matter of right. In exercising discretion court should take into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, conduct of the parties and respective interests under the contract. No specific performance of a contract, though it is not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, can be a granted if it would give an unfair advantage to the plaintiffs and where the purposes of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant which he did not forsee. It appears from plaint  that the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree for performance of contract as well as for compensation for non-performance of the same. In paragraph 5 of the plaint that they have

stated :

Ò5| 1bs weev`x c¶ KZ…©K ev`xc‡¶i AbyKz‡j 19/11/2009Bs Zvwi‡L m¤úvw`Z evqbv Pyw³ gg©g‡Z wbb¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwË eve‡Z Qq gvm†gqv‡`i g‡a¨ 1bs weev`x ev`xc‡¶i AbyKz‡j mvd Kejv m¤úv`b/ †iwR‡óªkb Kwiqv w`qv bg¥ Zdwm‡jv³ m¤úwËi Lvm `Lj ev`xc¶‡K eySvBqv w`‡Z e¨_© nB‡j 1bs weev`x ev`xc¶‡K †gqv` DËxY© GK Kvwjb 12,00,000/- ( evi j¶ ) UvKv Ges †gqv‡`vIxY© cªwZw`‡bi Rb¨ gs 10,000/- ( `k nvRvi) UvKv nv‡i ¶wZc~iY w`‡Z eva¨ _vwK‡e Ges evqbv Pzw³i gg© g‡Z ev`xc¶ ¶wZc~iY eveZ 1bs weev`xi wbKU gvgjv `v‡qi Z wiL 12/05/2011 Bs ch©š— gs 72,30,000/- UvKv cvvIqvi nK`vi I AwaKvix e‡U, hvnvi e¨vL¨v/weeiY wb‡g¥ cª`vb Kiv nBjt

* evqbvi ZvwiLt 19/11/2009Bs

* 6 gvm DIxY© nq t 19/05/2010 Zvwi‡L

*‡gqv` DIx‡Y© GK Kvjxb ¶wZ c~iY gs 12,00,000/-UvKv|

*20‡k †g/ 2010 Bs nB‡Z gvgjv 

`v‡qi ZvwiL 12/05/2012Bs ch©š— †gqv` DIx©Y

me©‡gvU 353 w`b|

cªwZw`b 10,000/- UvKv nv‡i

353 X 10,000/- -------------       gs  35,30,000/- UvKv|

evqbv eveZ cwi‡kva (Earnest Money)-- gs 25,00,000/- UvKv

(underlined by us)me© †gvU gs 72,30,000/- UvKv|

Z`ycwi gvgjv `v‡qi ZvwiL nB‡Z wWµxK…Z UvKv Av`vqZK Kj ch©š— AvBb I BKzBwU g‡Z cªwZw`b gs 10,000/- (`k nvRvi) UvKv nv‡i ev`xc¶ ¶wZc~iY cvIqvi nK`vi I AwaKvix e‡U|Ó That is, the plaintiffs have claimed specific performance and, in alternative, they have prayed for compensation.

The conduct for the plaintiffs in a suit for

specific performance is always an important element to be considered. The conduct of a party which puts the other party in a disadvantageous position, though it does not amount to waiver may, in certain cases,  preclude him  from obtaining a decree for specific performance . Here, in this case, it is evident that the defendant No.1 entered into the contract being influenced by the idea of the plaintiff No.1, the engaged Lawyer of the defendant No.1, that he would manage to get an order of payment of defaulted loan by way of installment upon exonerating the interest of the same, for which Agrani Bank obtained Artha Rin decree against him, if he pays tk.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff No.1 as his fees. It is true that Lawyer’s fee for conducting a case has not been limited or controlled by any law but receiving fees of tk.15,00,000/- or demanding of the same for conducting the Execution Case assuring the client to get order of installment exonerating interest from the Court does not indicate the  conduct of the concerned Lawyer as of conscionable and reasonable. The Court, as a Court of equity, should take into consideration of the conduct of the parties to the agreement and circumstances attending its execution and if specific performance will give unfair advantage to the plaintiff over defendant, it should be refused.  

The terms of agreement show that the same was made for sale  of the suit property at a consideration of taka 1,05,00,000/-. Out of the settled consideration, tk.20,00,000/- would be reduced if the defendant No.1 fails to manage Kamal Newaz and others to get pathway from their land of plots No. 893 and 894. It was also stipulated that the defendant No.1 shall pay taka 12,00000/- if the defendant No.1 fails to perform his part within 19.05.2010 and also shall pay tk.10,000/- for each day thereafter. From the facts and circumstances it reveals that there was

a peculiar pressure upon the defendant No.1 created by the plaintiff No.1 alluring him that he would manage to get installment of his drecretal dues and, it is the allegation against the plaintiff No.1 that, thereby, he had received tk.15,00,000/- from the defendant No.1. The bargain of the plaintiff No.1 was not fair and reasonable. The parties were not on equal footing and the bargain was unconscionable and oppressive. There was an unfair and designed approach on the part of the plaintiff No.1 to victimise the defendant No.1, taking opportunity of his disadvantageous position. So, prayer for specific performance is liable to be refused.    

But it is admitted fact that the defendant No.1 had received taka 25,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. Considering the facts of unconscionable and unreasonable bargain of the plaintiffs, nature of agreement and alternative prayer made by the plaintiffs, we are of the view that justice would be best met if it is directed to the defendant No.1 to return the earnest money , that is, a sum of tk. 25,00,000/- which was received from the plaintiff No.1 and the solatium of tk.25,00,000/- since the aforesaid amount was received by the defendant No.1 in 2009, that is, said amount is lying with him for about 9 years.

Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed of. The judgment and decrees of the High Court Division as well as these of the trial Court are set aside. Kazi Rafiqul Islam, defendant No.1 petitioner in C.P. No.2050 of 2017 and respondent No.1 in C.P.No.2319 of 2017 is directed to pay sum of tk.50,00,000/- (25,00,000/- consideration + 25,00,000/- as solatium) to the plaintiffs within 4(four) months  from the date of communication of this judgment and order to the trial Court, in default, the judgment and order of the High Court Division shall stand.   The office is directed to communicate this judgment and order to the trial Court at once.

C. J.

                                                                                                 J.                                                                                                  J.                                                                                                  J.

J.                                                                                                  J.                                                                                                  J.

The 9th December, 2018.

./words-      /

halim