IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Present:
Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed
Civil Revision No. 1698 of 2016 Md. Muzaffar Ali Sarker
...Petitioner -Versus-
Most. Sufia Bewa and others
…Opposite parties Mr. Md. Zakir Hossain, Advocate
….For the petitioner
Ms. Jannatul Ferdoushi (Rupa), with
Mr. Muhammad Nurul Kabir, Advocates
....For the opposite parties
Heard on: 04.12.2024 Judgment on: 11.12.2024
The instant Rule arises out of judgment and decree dated 21.11.2012 passed in Other Appeal No. 160 of 1999 by the learned Joint District Judge, First Court, Bogura allowing the appeal and sending the case back on remand to the trial Court for fresh trial upon setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1999 passed in Other Suit No. 14 of 1995 by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, 2nd Court, Bogura.
:2:
Plaintiff is the petitioner in the instant civil revision. The defendant-opposite parties have contested the Rule.
I have heard the learned Advocates of both sides and perused the materials on record.
While sending the case back to the trial Court on remand, the appellate Court below made some observations in the judgment. Some
of the observations are factually wrong and some of them are opinion
of the appellate Court which may have adverse effect during the fresh
trial. Therefore, those observations are required to be expunged. Accordingly, the following observations made in the impugned judgment by the appellate Court below are expunged.
“¢hh¡c£ fr qCa c¡¢Mm£u d¤eV b¡e¡ pqL¡l£ SS Bc¡mal 47/88ew ®j¡LŸj¡l l¡u ¢XH²£l S¡hc¡ c¡¢Mm Ll¡ qCa fËcA x , A1 ¢qp¡h ¢Q¢q²a quz
... ... ...
j§m ®j¡LŸj¡ ¢hh¡c£fr qCa 47/88 ®j¡LŸj¡u ®k l¡u ¢XH²£ c¡¢Mm Ll¡ qCu¡R a¡q¡a 975 c¡Nl .29 naL h¡hc üaÄ p¡hÉØqH²j M¡p cMml ¢XH²£ fËc¡e
Ll¡ quz HC j¡jm¡u ¢XH²£ fË¡ç h¡c£fr ®j¡x BR¡c Bm£ M¾cL¡l ¢cw Hhw ¢hh¡c£ ¢qp¡h gSl Bm£ ¢cw l¢qu¡Rz Eš² 47/88 ®j¡LŸj¡u ®k l¡u ¢XH²£ BCeax hq¡m J hmhv
b¡L¡ 975 c¡Nl 29 naL h¡hc 14/95 AeÉ ®j¡LŸj¡u h¡c£ fr ab¡ AcÉL¡l
Bf£mÉ¡¾VNZ ®L¡e fËL¡l fnËÀE›¡fe pr j ¢Rme e¡z 14/95 AeÉ ®j¡LŸj¡l h¡c£fr
k¢c HCl©f c¡h£ Lle ®k ¢a¢e h¡ a¡q¡l ®j±l¢n 47/88 ®j¡LŸj¡u fr ¢Rme e¡ ah
®pC ®rœ 14/95 AeÉ ®j¡LŸj¡l ¢hh¡c£fr qCa 47/86 AeÉ ®j¡LŸj¡l l¡u ¢XH²£l
:3:
S¡hc¡ c¡¢Mm qJu¡u Eš² l¡u ¢XH²£L a¡ h¡dÉLl eq ®O¡oZ¡l fË¡bÑe¡ Ll¡u BhnÉL ¢Rmz Bf£m fkÑ¡u j§m ®j¡LŸj¡l ¢fX¢hÔE-14¢V Bjme¡j¡ c¡¢Mm L®le Hhw 10¢V M¡Se¡l c¡¢Mm¡ c¡¢Mm Llez Bf£m fkÑ¡u I …¢m fcËnÑe£ ¢Q¢q²a quz
... ... ...
Bf£m fkÑ¡u c¡¢MmL«a fËcx ¢Q¢q²a L¡NS¡¢c ab¡ L-M(8) L¡NS…¢m f¡Ëb¢jLi ¡h ¢hnÄ¡pk¡NÉ eq jj ÑfËa£uj¡e quz
... ... ...
HR¡s¡ 96/80 AeÉ ®j¡LŸj¡l ¢hh¡c£ ¢qp¡h 14/95 AeÉ ®j¡LŸj¡l h¡c£ h¡ a¡q¡l ®j±lnL fr Ll¡ qu e¡Cz”
However, the ordering portion of appellate Court is upheld.
With the above observations and directions the Rule is disposed of.
Send down the L.C.R.
Mazhar, BO