দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)

এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত রায় বা আদেশ আপনি google translation এর মাধ্যমে বাংলায় দেখতে পাচ্ছেন তা সুপ্রীম কোর্ট কর্তৃক বাংলায় অনূদিত নয়। জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে বাংলায় অনূদিত রায়-আদেশ দেখার ব্যবস্থা রাখা হয়েছে। অনূদিত রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে অথবা অন্য কোন উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল রায় বা আদেশ প্রণিধানযোগ্য।
Microsoft Word - C.R. No. 2730 of 2018 Absolute

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed

Civil Revision No. 2730 of 2018

Mahatab Howlader @ Md. Mahatab Hossain and otehrs

...Petitioners -Versus-

Md. Idris Hawlader and others

…Opposite Parties Mr. Md. Mostafa, Advocate

….For the petitioners None

....For the opposite parties Heard and Judgment on: 11.11.2024

In the instant revisional application filed under Section 115(1) of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  at  the  instance  of  the  defendant- petitioners, this Court on 04.09.2018 issued a Rule calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1-13 to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhalakathi in Title Appeal No. 36 of 2014 allowing the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondents should not be set aside.

None of the opposite parties has entered appearance in the Rule.


1

The present opposite parties as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 19 of  1999  in  the  Court  of  the  then  Sub-ordinate  Judge,  now  Joint District Judge, Jhalakathi for partition of the suit land. The present petitioners are defendant in the said suit. The suit was dismissed on contest on 26.02.2009. The plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 35 of 2009.  The  learned  Additional  District  Judge,  Jhalakathi,  vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2012 allowed the appeal and sent the case on remand to the trial Court for fresh trial on the ground that all the suit lands were not brought on hotchpotch. When the case was sent to the trial Court on remand for fresh trial, the plaintiffs amended the plaint and filed fresh plaint. The suit was tried again and decreed in part on contest, vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2014 in preliminary form. Challenging the same, the defendants filed Title Appeal  No.  36  of  2014.  While  the  title  appeal  was  pending  for disposal the plaintiff-respondents on 24.04.2018 filed an application under Order VI rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for amendment of the plaint. The appellate Court below,  by  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  24.04.2018 allowed  the  application.  Challenging  the  same,  the  defendant- appellants preferred the instant revision and obtained Rule.

I have heard Mr. Md. Mostafa, the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant-appellant-petitioners and perused the materials on record.

As already noted, the application for amendment of the plaint was  filed  in  the  year  2018  in  the  appeal.  By  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2012 two provisos have been inserted to rule 17 of Order VI. Rule 17, as it is stands now after the amendment, is quoted below:

R.17  The  Court  may  at  any  stage  of  the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  real questions in controversy between the parties.

Provided  that  no  application  for  amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court is of opinion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial:

Provided  further  that  if  an  application  for amendment is made after the trial has commenced and the Court is of opinion that the application is made to delay the proceedings, the Court shall make an order for the payment to the objectors such cost by way of compensation as it thinks fit.

Under  the  first  proviso,  while  allowing  the  application  for amendment, the Court has to form an opinion that the party seeking the amendment could not raise the matter before commencement of trial in spite of due diligence. In the instant case, the appellate Court below allowed the application for amendment of the plaint without assigning  any  reason  whatsoever  in  respect  of  the  requirement provided under the first proviso. The appellate Court below also did not discuss about the merit of the application. It simply assigned the reason that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and character  of  the  suit.  Therefore,  failure  to  record  the  reason  for allowing the application for amendment as required under the first proviso to rule 17 is sufficient enough to set aside the impugned order. Mr. Md. Mostafa, the learned Advocate points out that the plaintiffs obtained part decree. They were satisfied with the said decree and did not prefer any appeal. The appeal was preferred by the defendants against the part decree. Therefore, there is no necessity at all to file an application for amendment of plaint by the plaintiff-respondents. Mr. Md. Mostafa further submits that the application for amendment was filed to delay the disposal of the appeal. Considering the facts of the case discussed above I find substance in the submission. Hence, the Rule succeeds.

In  the  result,  the  Rule  is  made  absolute.  The  impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 passed in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2014  by  the  Additional  District  Judge,  Jhalakathi  allowing  the application for amendment of the plaint by the plaintiff-respondents is set aside.

Mazhar, BO