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।

District:Habigonj

In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

High Court Division

(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)

  Present

Mr. Justice Md. Zakir Hossain

Civil Revision No. 1839 of 2020

Md. Abdul Batan Chowdhury .......Judgment-debtor-Appellant-Petitioner

-Versus-

Syed Istiaq Ahsan

......Decree holder-Respondent-Opposite Party

None appears

...... For the petitioner Mr. Ranabir Kumar Paul Chowdhury, Advocate

....... For the opposite party

Heard on:28.02.2024 Judgment on: 29.04.2024

At the instance of the petitioner, the Rule was issued by this Court with the following terms:

“Records be called for.

Let a Rule be issued calling upon the opposite

party to show cause as to why the order No. 23

dated 13.01.2020 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Habiganj Sadar, Habiganj in

Small Execution Case No. 01 of 2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner for obtaining the

Small Execution Case No. 01 of 2013 should not

be set aside and/or such other or further order or

orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and

proper.”

Facts leading to the issuance of the Rule are inter alia that in Small

Execution Case No. 01 of 2013, the judgment-debtor filed an application


1

for abatement of the aforesaid Execution Case since the decree holder left this transitory world during the pendency of the Execution Case. The substituted heirs of the judgment-debtor resisted the abatement petition by filing a written objection. Upon hearing, the learned Senior Assistant Judge and the Judge of the Small Cause Court rejected the petition for abatement of the Small Execution Case. Challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment and order of the learned Senior Assistant Judge, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the aforesaid Rule and stay therewith.

None appears to press the Rule.

Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate of the petitioner and perused the materials on record with due care and attention and seriousness as they deserve. The convoluted question of law embroiled in this case has meticulously been waded through.

The learned Senior Assistant Judge after delving into the facts rightly held to the effect:

ÒGwU GKwU Rvwi †gvKÏgv| †gvKÏgv cwimgvwßi (Abatement)

weavb †`Iqvbx Kvh©wewai 22 Av‡`‡ki 6 iæ‡ji weavb †gvZv‡eK bvwj‡ki Kvib we`¨gvb _vKzK ev bv _vKzK, ïbvbx mgvß nevi ci Ges ivq cÖPv‡ii c~‡e© †Kvb c‡ÿi g„Zz¨i Kvi‡Y †gvKÏgvi

cwimgvwß n‡e bv Ges 12 iæ‡ji weavb †gvZv‡eK g„Zz¨i Kvi‡Y cwimgvwßi weavb Rvwi †gvKÏgvi †ÿ‡Î cÖ‡hvR¨ n‡e bv| D”PZi

Av`vj‡Zi Ggb wm×všÍI (Ananda v. Sushil, 46 CWN

326) i‡q‡Q †h, bZzb Av‡e`b e¨ZxZB Av`vjZ Zviu AšÍwb©wnZ ÿgZve‡j g„Z wWµx`v‡ii AvBbMZ cÖwZwbwa‡K Rvwi †gvKÏgvi ¯’jvwfwl³ K‡i †gvKÏgv Pvjv‡Z cv‡ib| gvbbxq †Rjv RR

Av`vj‡Zi wmwfj wiwfkb bs 17/2017 †gvKÏgvi weMZ

08/07/2019 Zvwi‡Li ivq I Av‡`k n‡Z †`Lv hvq, weÁ

Av`vjZ `vwqKc‡ÿ AvbxZ wiwfkb †gvKÏgvwU bv-gÄyi

K‡i‡Qb| mvwe©K ch©‡jvPbvq †`Lv hvq †h, †h‡nZz GwU Rvwi †gvKÏgv, ZvB AÎ †gvKÏgvq cwimgvwßi (Abatement) †Kvb

AeKvk  ‡bB;  eis  g„Z  wWµx`v‡ii   AvBbMZ  cÖwZwbwa  AÎ †gvKÏgvq  ¯’jvwfwl³  nevi  ¯’j|   Rvwi  †gvKÏgv  ¯’wM‡Zi

wel‡q D”P Av`vj‡Zi †Kvb Av‡`k †bB| Kv‡RB wWµx`vic‡ÿi †gvKÏgv cwimgvwßi Av‡`k bv-gÄyi‡hvM¨|Ó

The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Senior

Assistant Judge is based on sound reasoning, therefore, the same does not warrant for any interference. It transpires from the record that the application for abatement is a device to prolong the Execution Case so that the decree holder or legal representative of the decree holder cannot enjoy the fruits of the decree. As a result, the Rule shall fall flat since it has got no substance.

In the result, the Rule is discharged, however, without passing any order as to costs. The earlier order of stay granted by this Court thus stands recalled and vacated. The learned Senior Assistant Judge is directed to dispose of the Execution Case with utmost expedition preferably within 06(six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

Let a copy of the judgment with LCRs be transmitted to the Court below.

...............................................

Md. Zakir Hossain, J

Naser Po