IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Present:
Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed
Civil Revision No. 3838 of 2018
Md. Mahbub Alam
........ Petitioner -Versus-
Rehana Begum and others
.... Opposite parties
Mr. A.M. Mahbub Uddin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saqeb Mahbub, Advocate
........ For petitioner Mr. Mohammad Imam Hasan, with
Mr. Md. Shahinul Islam, Advocates
.... For opposite party Nos. 1-7
Heard on: 27.08.2024 Judgment on: 03.11.2024
The instant civil revision filed under Section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) arises out of judgment and order No. 2 dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Noakhali in Civil Revision No. 48 of 2018 rejecting the revision and affirming the judgment and order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Chatkhil, Noakhali in Title Suit No. 76 of 2011 allowing the plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint. This Court on 26.11.2018 granted leave and issued a Rule.
1
The defendant is the petitioner before this Court. The present
opposite parties as plaintiff filed the title suit for pre-emption of the
suit land under the Mohammedan Law. The defendant-petitioner filed
written statement in the suit. PW1 was partly examined on
13.08.2018. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order
VI rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC on 30.08.2018 which
was allowed by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court
below.
While rejecting the revision, the revisional Court below
observed, “¢hQ¡¢lL A¡c¡ma Hl ®cw- 76/2011 j¡jm¡l Bl¢S, 30/08/18 ¢MËx a¡¢lM c¡¢Mm£ BlS£ pwn¡del clM¡Øa Hhw 30/08/2018 ¢MËx a¡¢lMl a¢LÑa Bcnl S¡hc¡ eLm c¡¢Mm Ll¡ quRz M¢lŸ¡l ¢hh¡c£/ f¡Ëb£Ña c¡¢h Bl¢S pwn¡del clM¡Øa
j”¤ll j¡dÉj j¡jm¡l cause of action f¢lhaeÑ quRz L¡SC Eš² Bcn
BCepwNa qu e¡Cz j§m j¡jm¡l Bl¢Sl S¡hc¡ eLm fkÑ¡m¡Qe¡u ®cM¡ k¡u ®k, 24/12/2009 ¢MËx a¡¢lMl 5866ew p¡g Lhm¡l ¢hl²Ü j¤p¢mj BCel ¢hd¡e Ae¤k¡u£ ANH˲u j¡jm¡¢V c¡ul Ll¡ quRz Eš² Bl¢Sa a¢LÑa c¢mm pÇfLÑ 18/05/2011
a¡¢lM AhNa quR jjÑ EõM Ll¡ quRz Bl¢Sl 5ew fÉ¡l¡u Eš² a¡¢lM AhN¢al ¢hou¢V EõM Ll¡ quRz 4ew fÉ¡l¡l ®no m¡Ce a¢LÑa pwn¡de£ Be¡ BhnÉL ¢Rm e¡z ¢L¿º Eš² pwn¡de£l ®fË¢ra j¡jm¡c la use of action f¢lhaÑe quR hm¡ k¡u e¡z
L¡SC HC ¢p¢i m ¢l¢i n¡e j¡jm¡¢V pl¡p¢l AN¡ËqÉk¡NÉz”
On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the
proposed amendment relates to serial number of a registered deed
dated 23.09.1941 and date of a registered deed being No. 5866 and
date of obtaining the certified copy of the sale deed in question which are mere clerical in nature. It also appears that the proposed amendment in respect of the schedule of land given in the plaint does not change the nature and character of the suit land and as such, the proposed amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit, rather those are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. This being the position, this Court does not find any illegally in the judgment and order passed by the revisional Court below. The instant revision does not involve any issue on an error of an important question of law resulting in erroneous decision occasioning failure of justice. Hence, the Rule fails.
In the result, the Rule is discharged.
Mazhar, BO