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 - Final F.M.A No. 40 of 21 with R-87.doc

1

                                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

    HIGH COURT DIVISION

                  (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Badruzzaman.

  And

Mr. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar

  First Misc. Appeal No. 40 of 2021.

   With

  Civil Rule No. 97 (F.M) of 2020

  Masrur Hasan Khan (Orin) and another

              ...Appellants. -Versus-

  Belal Hossain and others

        ....Respondents.    None appears

For the appellants

   Mr. Md. Rashidul Karim, Advocate

For respondent Nos. 1-2, 7-8.

         Heard and judgment on: 20.05.2024.

Md. Badruzzaman, J:

This appeal and Civil Rule arose out of same facts and accordingly, those have been heard together and now are being disposed of by this common judgment.

The appeal is directed against an order dated 03.07.2019 passed by learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Jamalpur in Other Class Suit No. 19 of 2017 rejecting an application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellants.

During pendency of this appeal and at the instance of the plaintiff -appellants Rule was issued on 16.02.2020 calling upon the defendant- respondent-opposite parties to show cause as to why they should not be restrained from evicting or dispossessing the plaintiff-appellants from the suit land and at the same time the parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of possession and position of the suit land for a period of 6 (six) months.

It appears that the order of status-quo was not extended further and the period of status-quo expired on 15.08.2020. When the matters are taken up for hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant is found absent. Since the period of  status-quo was not extended and the plaintiff-appellants did not take any steps to extend the period of status-quo,  we are of the view that the appellants have lost their interest in this matter. Accordingly, we find no reason to direct the parties to maintain  status-quo or grant any injunction against the defendant-respondents.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed and the Rule is discharged however, without any order as to costs.

The order of status-quo granted earlier by this Court is hereby vacated.

The Court below is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Court below at once.

(Justice Md. Badruzzaman)

   I agree.

            (Mr. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar)

Md. Nurul Islam