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 - C R 6040 of 2023 with C Misc 12 of 2024 Final

Bench:

Mr. Justice Md. Ruhul Quddus

Civil Revision Number 6040 of 2023 with

Civil Miscellaneous Number 12 of 2024

Md. Rafiqul Islam Gazi

...Petitioner in both the rules      -Versus-

Firoz Shikder

Opposite party in both the rules

Mr. Kingshuk Das, Advocate

            …for petitioner in both rules

Mr. Jahidul Haque with Mr. Akram Hossain, Advocates

for opposite party in the both

Judgment on 26.06.2025

The above mentioned two cases arising out of one proceeding between the same parties have been heard simultaneously and are being disposed of by this one judgment.

The rule in the civil revision was issued on an application under Section  115  (1)  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  challenging  the legality of ad-interim order of injunction dated 04.07.2023 passed by the  District  Judge,  Madaripur  in  Arbitration  Miscellaneous  Case Number  02  of  2023,  while  the  Miscellaneous  Case  was  filed  for transfer of the same from the Court of District Judge, Madaripur to any other District Judge’s Court, wherein rule was issued and the proceedings of the case was stayed.


1

Opposite  party  being  petitioner  filed  the  Arbitration Miscellaneous Case under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act and also filed  an  application  for  injunction  under  Section  7  A  thereof restraining  the  opposite  party  (petitioner  herein)  from  selling  the goods as described in the schedule of the application.  

Learned District Judge, Madaripur issued a show cause notice, to  which  the  petitioner  filed  a  written  objection  denying  the authenticity of the arbitration agreement, and claiming the arbitration case to be a premature one. 

  The application was lastly fixed for hearing on 20.07.2003. In the meantime, the present opposite party filed an application for ad- interim injunction on 04.07.2023. Learned District Judge heard the application and allowed the same by order dated 04.07.2023 granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the opposite party. Challenging the said order, the present petitioner moved in this court and obtained the rule. He also filed the miscellaneous case for transfer of the case brining  allegation  of  bias  against  the  Judge  passed  the  order  and obtained rule.

Mr. Kingshuk Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the learned District Judge heard the application for ad-interim injunction on an advanced date beyond the petitioner’s knowledge and also without serving him any notice. It shows illegality and biasness on the part of the learned District Judge, Madaripur.                  

Mr. Jahidul Hoque, learned Advocate for the opposite party with reference to the counter-affidavit (vide Annexure-II) submits that before  obtaining  the  rule,  the  original  application  for  temporary injunction  was  already  disposed  of,  but  the  petitioner  without challenging the said order of temporary injunction, filed the present application  and  obtained  the  rule  suppressing  the  material  fact. Learned District Judge who passed the order has also been transferred elsewhere and as such the rule in the miscellaneous case has also become infractuous. 

Mr. Kingshuk Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner does not controvert  the  authenticity  of  the  statement  made  in  the  counter- affidavit and Annexure-II appended thereto.

I have heard the learned advocates and gone through the record. It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party that the application for temporary injunction was allowed by order dated 20.07.2023 and the rule in the present civil revision was issued on 19.11.2023 challenging the earlier order dated 04.07.2023. So, at the time of issuance of the rule, there was no force in the impugned order.

It further appears that the learned District Judge, before whom the case was pending, is no longer posted at Madaripur. The rule in the miscellaneous case has, therefore, become infructuous and lost its force to proceed.

Under the circumstances, both the rules are discharged. The stay of the arbitration proceedings granted earlier by this court stands vacated. Learned District Judge, Madaripur is directed to dispose of the arbitration case as early as possible.            

Shalauddin/ABO