IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah                             and

 [

Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Civil Revision No. 3690 of 2018

  In the matter of:

An  application  under  Section  115(1)  of  the  Code  of            Civil Procedure, 1908

                   And

  In the matter of: 

Md. Emdadul Haque

---Defendant-Petitioner.

-Versus-

  A.K.S.Mozibul Haque and others.

                              ---Plaintiffs-Opposite parties.

                       Mr. Md. Modersher Ali Khan, Advocate

                    ---For the petitioner.   Mr. Md. Alamgir Mostafizur Rahman with    Mr. Mohammad Rayhan Uddin, Advocates

--- For the opposite party Nos.1-2.

  Heard on 30.07.2024

Judgment on: 31.07.2024

Md. Bashir Ullah, J

 At the instance of the defendant no. 1 in Title Suit No. 89 of 2018 this rule was issued calling upon the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 18.10.2018 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 4th Court, Dhaka in the said suit allowing an application of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to re-connect water, electricity and gas line in the scheduled property should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

The short facts, relevant for the disposal of the instant rule are:

The 'Ka' schedule property so described in the plaint belonged to

one Md. Sirajul Haque and he constructed a four-storey building on the

suit  land  by  taking  loan  from  Bangladesh  House  Building  Finance Corporation  by  mortgaging  the  said  property.  However,  he  died unmarried, leaving behind four brothers and one sister and accordingly

the plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 and defendants nos. 1 and 2 and the mother of

defendant nos. 4 to 7 became owners in the scheduled land as heirs.

They  have  been  enjoying  possession  of  the  suit  land  upon  making

payment  of  the  installments  of  the  loan  and  other  utility  bills.  The

plaintiffs approached the defendants nos.1 and 2 to make partition of the

land on 04.10.2017 but the defendant nos.1 and 2 did not pay any heed

to the same rather the defendant nos. 1 and 2 disclosed that Md. Sirajul

Haque transferred the 'Ka' scheduled property in their favour by a deed

of  gift  and  that  of  defendant  no.3  by  an  ''Oshiyat  nama''.  Having

informed, the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 then obtained two registered deeds

vide Nos. 4356 dated 29.04.2015 and 142 dated 04.12.2014. Since, the

plaintiffs are the co-sharer in the suit land, they thus instituted the above

mentioned suit for partition and declaration that, deed Nos. 4356 dated 29.04.2015 and 141 dated 04.12.2015 are illegal, void and inoperative

seeking following reliefs:

(L) h¡c£NZ "L' af¢pm h¢ZÑa e¡¢mn£ pÇf¢š−a a¡q¡−cl A¢hh¡¢qa jªa ï¡a¡l Ju¡¢ln ¢qp¡−h 4/9 Aw−n 0232 Ak¤a¡wn pÇf¢šl j¡¢mL j−jÑ HL fË¡b¢jL ¢X¢œ² ¢c−a;

13.   Bc¡ma LaªÑL h¡c£N−Zl hl¡h−l fËcš fË¡b¢jL ¢X¢œ²l jj¡Ñe¤k¡u£ HLSe Sl£f ‘¡e pÇfæ ¢h‘ HX−i¡−LV L¢jne¡l ¢e−u¡N L¢lu¡ p−lS¢j−e "L' af¢p−m h¢ZÑa e¡¢mn£ pÇf¢š f¢lj¡Z A−¿¹ ¢QV¡ jÉ¡f ®~al£ Llax ¢QV¡ jÉ¡f

pq ¢h‘ HX−i¡−LV L¢jne¡−ll p−lS¢j−e f¢lj¡f J ac¿¹

fË¢a−hce ¢h‘ Bc¡m−a Sj¡ ®cJu¡l SeÉ Sl£f ‘¡e pÇfæ HX−i¡−LV L¢jne¡l−L ¢e−cÑn ¢c−a;

14.    S¢lf ‘¡e pÇfæ HX−i¡−LV L¢jne¡l p¡−q−hl ac¿¹

fË¢a−hce NËqZ Llax ac¡e¤p¡−l Q¨s¡¿¹ ¢X¢œ² fËQ¡l L¢l−a ;

15.       ¢X¢œ²l jjÑ j§−m e¡¢mn£ afp£m h¢ZÑa pÇf¢š−a h¡c£N−Zl fË¡ç pÇf¢š qC−a ¢hh¡c£N−Zl pLm fËL¡l h¡d¡ ¢hOÀ Afp¡l−Z Eq¡l M¡p cMm h¡c£ f−rl hl¡h−l fËc¡e

Ll¡l ¢e−cÑn ¢c−a;

16.   "L' af¢pm h¢ZÑa e¡¢mn£ pÇf¢š pwœ²¡¿¹ " M' af¢p−m h¢ZÑa 1-2 ew ¢hh¡c£l e¡j£u ¢hNa 29/04/2015 Cw a¡¢l−Ml ®Xjl¡ p¡h-−l¢S¢øÊ A¢g−p ®l¢S¢øÊL«a 4356 ew ¢XLÓ¡−lne Ah ®qh¡ c¢m−ml h¢ZÑa 1-2ew ¢hh¡c£N−Zl hl¡h−l ®j±¢ML c¡−el hš²hÉ ®h-BCe£, A®~hd, üaÄ ¢hq£e, lc, l¢qa,h¡¢am J AL¡kÑÉLl j−jÑ −O¡oZ¡ j§mL ¢X¢œ² ¢c−a ;
17. "L' af¢pm h¢ZÑa e¡¢mn£ pÇf¢š pwœ²¡¿¹ "N' af¢p−m h¢ZÑa 3 ew ¢hh¡c£l e¡j£u ¢hNa 04/12/2015 Cw a¡¢l−Ml ®Xjl¡ p¡h-−l¢S¢øÊ A¢g−p ®l¢S¢øÊL«a; 141 ew A¢Ruae¡j¡ c¢mm ®h-BCe£, A®~hd, üaÄ ¢hq£e, lc, l¢qa, h¡¢am J AL¡kÑÉLl j−jÑ −O¡oZ¡ j§mL ¢X¢œ² ¢c−a ;

18.   l¡−ul Ae¤¢m¢f 9 ew ®j¡L¡¢hm¡ ¢hh¡c£l hl¡h−l ®fËl−Z pw¢nÓø c¢mm pÇf−LÑ l¡−ul B−cn M¡e¡ pw¢nÔø c¢m−ml i¢mE−j ®e¡V Ll¡l SeÉ ¢e−cÑn ¢c−a ;
19.    ®j¡LŸj¡l MlQ h¡c£N−Zl Ae¤L¨−m J j§m ¢hh¡c£N−Zl fË¢aL¨−m ¢X¢œ² ¢c−a ;
20.    h¡c£NZ BCeax J eÉ¡uax AeÉ¡eÉ ®k pLm fË¢aL¡l

f¡Ju¡l A¢dL¡l£ Eq¡J ¢X¢œ² ¢c−az

The petitioner as defendant no.1 entered appearance and contested

the said suit but did not file any written statement till 18.10.2018.

 During trial, the plaintiffs-opposite parties on 18.10.2018 filed an

application seeking reconnection of water, electricity and gas line in the

scheduled property and not to disconnect the said lines till disposal of

the suit. 

Upon hearing the parties, learned Joint District Judge, 4th Court,

Dhaka vide impugned order dated 18.10.2018 directed the defendants to

reconnect the water, electricity and gas lines in the scheduled property

directing further that, the plaintiffs would pay electricity, gas and water

bills  proportionately.  The  trial  Court  also  held  that,  there  was  no

prohibitory  order  upon  the  WASA,  Titas  Gas  and  the  electricity

authority to disconnect the lines for violations of rules by the consumer.

Being  aggrieved  by  and  dissatisfied  with  the  said  order  dated

18.10.2018, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 4th Court, Dhaka 

the defendant no.1 as petitioner filed this civil revision and obtained the

rule. 

Mr. Md. Modersher Ali Khan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that, the meters of the water, gas and electricity  connections  are  in  the  name  of  the  petitioner  and  if  the plaintiff-opposite party steals or pilferages the water, gas and electricity or does not pay the bills then the defendant-petitioner will be held liable in the eye of law and hence, the trial court has committed an error of law resulting in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice in directing to reconnect the water, gas and electricity line of the scheduled property and the same cannot be sustained in law.

He further submits that, earlier the plaintiffs did not pay the utility bills resulting in huge bills remained unpaid against the plaintiffs and finally prays for making the rule absolute.

On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Mohammad  Rayhan  Uddin,  learned Advocate for the opposite party nos.1-2 submits that there is no illegality in  the  impugned  order  as  the  trial  Court  has  rightly  considered  the application filed by the plaintiffs on humanitarian grounds as there are no dues stands against the plaintiff-opposite parties.

The learned counsel finally submits that, the learned judge of the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Honourable Court.

We have considered the submission so advanced by the learned Advocates  for  the  parties,  perused  the  revisional  application,  the impugned order passed by the trial Court, and other materials on record.

It has been stated in the plaint that, the 'Ka' schedule property belonged to one Md. Sirajul Haque and he constructed a four-storey

building on the scheduled land by availing loan from defendant no. 8,

namely,  Bangladesh  House  Building  Finance  Corporation.  However,

Md. Sirajul Haque died unmarried leaving behind 4 brothers and 1 sister

and  on  21.01.2018,  sister,  namely,  Monowara  died  leaving  behind

defendant nos. 4 to 7. Thus the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and defendants nos.

1, 2 and 4 to 7 became the owner of the scheduled property. They have

been  enjoying  possession  of  the  scheduled  property  jointly.  The

plaintiffs filed the Title Suit for partition of the scheduled property and

declaration that, the deeds nos. 4356 dated 29.04.2015 and 142 dated

04.12.2014 are illegal and void. In the meantime, the defendant nos.1

and 2 disconnected the plaintiff’s WASA, gas and electricity lines and

therefore  the  plaintiffs  filed  an  application  before  the  Joint  District

Judge, 4th Court, Dhaka on 18.10.2018 and on hearing of the parties, the

trial Court directed to re-connect the plaintiffs’ water, electricity and gas

lines. The Court also directed them to pay the utility bills proportionately

where  the  Court  below  observed  that  there  is  no  injunction  or  any

prohibitory order upon the authority that led them to disconnect the

utility lines in the event of failure in making payment of the bill or

violation of any rules.

The trial court passed the impugned order which runs as follows:

e¢b fk¡Ñ−m¡Qe¡ Llm¡jz e¡¢mn£ pÇf¢š HSj¡¢m pÇf¢š qJu¡u Hhw h¡c£ J ¢hh¡c£ HLC ¢h¢ôw-H hph¡p Ll¡u f¢lh¡l-f¢lSe ¢e−u hph¡−pl ¢hou¢V j¡e¢hL ¢cL ¢h−hQe¡u Hacpwœ²¡−¿¹  fË−u¡Se£u B−cn fËc¡e Ll¡ pj£Q£e j−e L¢l J clM¡−Øa h¢ZÑa ®qa¥ p¿¹¢øœ²−j h¡c£

f−rl fË¡bÑe¡¢V f¢lha£Ña BL¡−l j”¤l Ll¡ q−m¡z ag¢pm

h¢ZÑa |pÇf¢š J clM¡−Øa h¢ZÑa ag¢p−ml f¡¢e, ¢hc¤Év J NÉ¡p m¡Ce f¤expw−k¡Se Ll¡l SeÉ ¢hh¡c£ fr−L ¢e−cÑn ®cJu¡ ®Nmz h¡c£fr j¡jm¡¢V ¢eØf¢š e¡ qJu¡ fkÑ¿¹ A¡e¤f¡¢aL q¡−l ¢hc¤Év, NÉ¡p J f¡¢e ¢hm f¢l−n¡d Ll−hez

a−h plhl¡qL¡l£ fË¢aù¡e ab¡ Ju¡p¡, ¢aa¡p NÉ¡p ¢mx,

¢hc¤Év Eæue ®h¡XÑ CaÉ¡¢cl à¡l¡ NË¡qL LaªÑL ¢h¢d mwO−el SeÉ ®L¡e ¢h¢µRæ LlZ L¡kÑœ²−j Aœ Bc¡m−al ®L¡e ¢e−od¡‘¡j§mL B−cn −eCz 

Upon perusal, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed

by  the  learned  Joint  District  Judge,  4th  Court,  Dhaka  directing  to

reconnect the utility lines of the plaintiffs.

Hence, we find no substance and merit in the rule and as such the

same is liable to be discharged.

Accordingly, the rule is discharged without any order as to costs.

The defendants-petitioners are hereby directed to reconnect all utility lines of the plaintiffs namely the Water, Gas and Electricity and take proper and necessary steps to ensure such action within 15(fifteen) days.  The  defendants-petitioners  are  further  directed  to  submit description of arrear bills of the utility services which were not paid by the plaintiffs-opposite parties before the trial Court within a period of 01(one) month from date by supplying a copy of such description to the plaintiffs-opposite  parties.  If  the  plaintiffs-opposite  parties  have  any objection with regard to such description, they are at liberty to submit a counter statement against the same also within a period of 01 (one) month from receiving the description of arrear bills.

After receiving the claim and counterclaim, the trial Court, is at liberty to pass necessary order after assessing the claim of the defendant- petitioner and if any arrear bills are found against the plaintiffs, the trial Court can direct the plaintiffs to pay the same to the defendant or to the concerned utility authority/authorities directing the plaintiffs to pay the same within a period of 02(two) months from passing such order and in the  event  of  default  in  making  such  payment  by  the  plaintiffs,  the respective utility authorities can disconnect all the utility connection of the plaintiffs forthwith.

Let a copy of the judgment and order be communicated to the concerned Court forthwith.

Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah,J

I agree.

Aziz/abo