Present:

Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal Civil Revision No. 3783 of 2018 Golemon Bewa and others.

..…. Plaintiff-petitioners.

Versus

Sabina Yasmin and others

                        …..Defendant -Opposite Parties. Mr. Mohammad Zahangir Alam, Advocate.

                        .…For the Plaintiff-petitioners. Mr. B.M. Mamunur Rashid, Advocate.

  …For the Defendant-opposite-party Nos. 1-3. Heard and Judgment on 22.08.2024

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajshahi in Title Appeal No. 39 of 2018 dismissing the appeal summarily on the ground  of  limitation  and  thereby  affirming  the  judgment  and decree dated 31.10.2016 (decree signed on 06.11.2016) passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Rajshahi in Other Class Suit No. 84 of 2012 dismissing the suit 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 relevant facts briefly are that the Petitioners as plaintiffs filed Other Class Suit No. 84 of 2012 in the Court of the learned Senior  Assistant  Judge,  Sadar,  Rajshahi  impleading  opposite parties as defendants praying the following reliefs:

Ultimately  the  suit  was  dismissed  on  contest  by  the judgment  and  decree  dated  31.10.2016  (decree  signed  on 06.11.2016) passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Rajshahi.

Aggrieved thereby the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 39 of 2018 with an application for delay of 473 days before the learned  District  Judge,  Rajshahi  who  dismissed  the  appeal summarily on the ground of limitation by his judgment and order dated 22.05.2018.

Being  aggrieved  by  and  dissatisfied  with  the  aforesaid impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  22.05.2018,  the  plaintiff- petitioners  preferred this  revision  application and obtained the present rule.

Mr.  Mohammad  Zahangir  Alam,  the  learned  Advocate appearing  for  the  plaintiff-petitioners  in  the  course  of  his arguments takes me through the impugned judgment and order dated  22.05.2018  and  other  materials  on  record  including  the application for condonation of delay and then submits that the delay has been explained properly although the learned judge of the appellate Court below without considering the same dismissed the  appeal  summarily  on  the  ground  of  limitation  which occasioned a failure of justice. He next submits that in the facts and  circumstances  of  the  case  unless  the  appeal  is  heard and disposed  of  on  merit,  the  plaintiff-petitioners  shall  suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Mr. B.M. Mamunur Rashid, the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant -opposite parties, on the other hand, opposes the Rule and supports the impugned judgment and order as well as judgment of the trial Court below, which were according to him   just, correct and proper. He submits that there is no merit in the suit inasmuch as plaintiffs has no right, title and possession over suit land, PW-2 admitted in his deposition that the defendants are in possession over the suit land. He adds that all the records of rights  are  recorded  in  the  name  of  the  predecessors  of  the defendants. Besides on top of that the reasons for delay of 473 days as given in the application are vague in nature and unspecific and that the learned District Judge, Rajshahi justly rejected the same. 

Having heard the learned Advocates for both the parties, perused  the  revision  application  and  having  gone  through  the application  for  delay  filed  by  the  petitioners  as  evidenced  by “Annexure-A” to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.08.2024, judgments of 2 (two) Courts below, deposition of witnesses and other materials on record including the exhibits, the only question calls for consideration in this Rule whether the learned District Judge committed any error in dismissing the appeal summarily on the ground of limitation.

On scrutiny of the record, it appears that the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration of title was heard and disposed of on merit by the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2016 on contest and thereafter the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 39 of 2018 before the learned  District  Judge,  Rajshahi  with  an  application  for condonation of delay of 473 days in filing the appeal. The reasons for delay as stated in the application appears to be vague in nature and  not  satisfactory  in  any  manner  whatsoever.  Besides,  it appears that PW-2, Md. Mota Kalam stated in his deposition that- “

”

This shows that the defendants admittedly are in possession over the suit land. The learned Judge of the trial Court below on due consideration of the entire evidence and materials on record rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs having failed to prove their right, title and possession in the suit land.

The  reasons  for  delay  as  given  in  the  application  for condonation  filed  the  plaintiff-petitioners  before  the  learned District Judge together with the facts of the case it appear that in the  instant  case   the  plaintiff  petitioners  acted  in  the  gross negligent way in dealing with this case which clearly established that they have failed to explain the delay and they are guilty of gross negligence and inaction in preparing and moving appeal and thus, the learned District Judge committed no illegality in rejecting the application summarily on the ground of limitation.

On an analysis of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajshahi, I find no  flaw  in  the  reasonings  of  the  learned  District  Judge.  The impugned Judgment and order is well founded in law and fact.

On a reading of the judgment of the trial Court, it appears that  the  trial  Court  below  considered  the  material  points  and taking into consideration all the evidence and materials on record rightly dismissed the suit.

  In view of my discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs it is by now clear,  that the instant Rule must fail.

In the result, the Rule is discharged without any order as to

costs.

 Let a copy of this judgment along with lower Courts’ record be sent down at once.