Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque

Civil Rule No. 232(Con) of 2022

Md. Abul Hossain

     …Petitioner -Versus-

Md. Abdur Rashid and others

     …Opposite-parties Mr. Chowdhury Shamsul Arifin, Advocate ...For the Petitioner

No one appears.

...For the opposite-parties Judgment on 20th October, 2024.

On an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this

Rule was issued calling upon the opposite-parties to show cause as to

why  the  delay  of  221  days  in  filing  this  revision  against  the impugned  judgment  and  decree  dated  22.03.2021  passed  by  the

learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Naogaon in Title Appeal No.

214  of  1992  disallowing  the  same  and  thereby  affirming  the judgment  and  decree  dated  08.10.1992  passed  by  the  learned Assistant Judge, Sapahar, Naogaon in Other Class Suit No. 17 of

1991 decreeing the suit should not be condoned and/or pass such

other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit

and proper.                                                                                                          

Mr. Chowdhury Shamsul Arifin, learned Advocate appearing

for the applicant submits that the delay of 221 days in filing this revision has been explained in the application filed on 31.01.2022.

He further submits that there is no intentional laches and negligence

on the part of the petitioner but the present revisional application

could not be filed in time. He also submits that there is merit in this revision to be succeeded and unless the delay of 221 days in filing

2

the  revisional  application  is  condoned,  the  petitioner  shall  suffer irreparable loss and deprived of getting justice, accordingly, he prays for condonation of delay.

No one appeared for the opposite-parties to oppose the same.

I have gone through the application for condonation of delay and the statements made thereof.

It appears that the revisional application has been filed beyond time. The reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay are found to be satisfactory. Moreover, condonation of delay always depends upon the discretion of the  Court and power to condone delay has been conferred upon Court to enable it to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing the matters on merit and the Court as  a long  standing practice  in  condoning  delay,  generally,  in  its discretion  entertains  application  for  condonation  of  delay  in  a suitable case where there is no laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to condone the delay.

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

The delay of 221 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Order of status-quo stands vacated. Office is directed to do the needful. 

Helal/ABO