IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL APPLICATION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Mohi Uddin Shamim

Civil Rule No. 1076 (Con) of 2023

In the matter of:

An  application  under  section  5  of  the Limitation  Act,  1908  for  condonation  of delay of 136 days in filing this Revisional Application

In the matter of:          

         Abdus Samad Laskar and others

                    ….. Defendants-appellants-petitioners         

-  Versus -

Md.  Sajahan  Mallik  being  died,  his  legal heirs: 1(a) Aa. Halim and others

…. Defendants-respondents-opposite parties Md. Abdur Razzaque Laskar and others

…. Defendants-respondants-opposite parties

Mst. Vanu Bibi and others 

  …. Defendants-respondents- proforma opposite

parties

 Mr. Mohammad Mahmud Hasan, Advocate          

          ……. For the petitioners  

 Md. Habibulla

                 .... For the opposite party No.1(a)

Heard and judgment on 28th October, 2024

Mohi Uddin Shamim, J.

 This  Rule  was  issued  at  the  instance  of  the  defendants-

appellants-petitioners  upon  an  application  under  section  5  of  the Limitation Act, 1908 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the delay of 136 days in filing this revisional application under section 115 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the impugned  judgment  and  decree  dated  15.03.2023  passed  by  the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Rajbari in Title Appeal No.63 of 2015 should not be condoned and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper. 

Facts necessary for disposal of the Rule, in short, are that the petitioner filed the instant Civil Revision before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2023 (decree signed on 16.03.2023) passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Rajbari in Title Appeal No.63 of 2015, disallowing the Appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 04.06.2015 and the final decree drawn on  22.06.2015  passed  by  the  learned  Assistant  Judge,  Baliakandi, Rajbari in Title Suit No.20 of 2001.  

Being  aggrieved  by  and  dissatisfied  with  the  aforesaid judgment  and  decree  dated  15.03.2023,  the  petitioners  filed  this revision application with a delay of 136 days, hence the instant Rule.

Mr.  Mohammad  Mahmud  Hasan,  the  learned  Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellants-petitioners takes us through  the  application  for  condonation  of  delay,  specifically mentioning  the paragraph  no.2  -  7  of the application, vehemently submits that there was no laches or negligence on the part of the petitioners in filing this revision application. The judgment and decree was passed on 15.03.2023; the petitioners applied for certified copies of the said judgment and decree on 10.04.2023, which was ready for delivery  on  02.05.2023  and  the  said  certified  copies  was  taken delivery on the very day. But the petitioners did not get the certified copy of the final decree of the trial Court since those were missing from the record. Then the learned advocate for petitioners gave a representation to the trial Court on 21.05.2023 through registered post with  acknowledgement  due  (AD).  Thereafter,  by  consecutive correspondence & representations to the Court and following several Court orders & Directions the petitioners had been able to manage to obtain the said final decree on 10.11.2013 and handed over the same to their engaged lawyers to take appropriate legal action against the said judgement and decree but in the meantime a delay of 136 days had been occurred in filling this revision application. He next submits that in this circumstances, they could not managed to file this revision application in time and the delay was very much unintentional and not inordinate one. There was no willful laches and negligence on the part of the petitioners. He finally submits that if the delay of 136 days in filling this revision application is not condoned the petitioners will

No one appears for and on behalf of the opposite parties to oppose the Rule. 

I  have  heard  the  submission  so  advanced  by  the  learned Advocate for the petitioners, perused the application for condonation of delay and the other connected materials available on record and find that the reasons for delay has sufficiently and adequately been explained  in  the  application  for  condonation  of  delay,  very specifically in paragraph nos. 2 – 7 of the application. I do not find any willful laches or negligence on the part of the petitioners. 

It is the legal periphery that, a civil revision application against any judgment and decree or order is to be filed within a period of 90 days  from  the  date  of  passing  of  the  impugned  judgment  and decree/order, but if a revisional application could not be filed within the  stipulated  period  of  time,  this  Court  in  its  discretion,  on application made for condonation of delay, may condone the delay in suitable case, where there is no laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner, and this is the long standing practice for condoning any delay.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions so advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioners as  well  as  the  submissions  made  in  the  condonation  application (paragraphs 2-7), it appears to me that the cause of delay of 136 days in filing of this revision application has sufficiently been explained in the application for condonation of delay. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the revisional application.

In the result, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to

costs.

The delay of 136 days in filing this revisional application is, hereby, condoned.

The petitioner is directed to place the revisional application to an appropriate Bench of this Court for hearing without any delay.  

Md. Eyasin, Abo.