Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque

Civil Revision No. 1959 of 2022 Shilpi Rani Sarker

      ... Petitioner -Versus-

Suranjit Sarker Manik and another

      ...Opposite-parties Mr. Shishir Kanti Mazumder, Advocate

     ...For the petitioner No one appears

         ...For the opposite-parties

Judgment on 23rd October, 2024.

On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure this Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why  the  judgment  and  order  dated  26.01.2022  passed  by  the learned District Judge, Netrakona in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 55 of 2021 disallowing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Netrakona in Other Class Suit No. 977 of 2021 so far it  relates  to  allowing  the  prayer  for  temporary  injunction  in modified  form  of  maintaining  status-quo  by  both  the parties  in respect of the suit property should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Shorn of unnecessary details, fact of the case lies in a very short compus. The petitioner, as plaintiff, filed Other Class Suit No. 977  of  2021  in  the  Court  of  Senior  Assistant  Judge,  Sadar, Netrakona against the opposite-parties, for a decree of permanent injunction in the following terms;

“(L) ¢ejÀ af¢Rm h¢ZÑa c¡h£l i¨¢j ab¡ h¡p¡ qC a ¢hh¡c£fr k¡q¡ a h¡c£fr L ®hcMm L¢l a e¡ f¡ l h¡ h¡¢ce£l üaÅ cM ml ®L¡e ¢hOÀ pªSe L¢l a e¡ f¡ l h¡ ¢h¢ôw-Hl ¢ejÑ¡Z L¡ S h¡d¡ fÐc¡e L¢l a e¡ f¡ l avj jÑ h¡c£fr Ae§L§ m ¢hh¡c£fr fТaL¨ m ÙÛ¡u£ ¢e­od¡‘¡l ¢X¢œ² ¢c­a;”

On  the  very  day  of  filing  this  suit,  the  plaintiff  filed  an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  praying  for  temporary  injunction against the defendants in the same manner as prayed for in the plaint. The trial court at the first instance granted an order of ad- interim injunction.

The defendants field written objection against the application for injunction. The trial court after hearing both the parties by its order dated 22.09.2021 allowed the application and passed an order directing  both  the  parties  to  maintain  status-quo  modifying  ad- interim order of injunction passed earlier by the Court against the defendants.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.  55  of  2021  before  the  Court  of  learned  District  Judge, Netrakona who after hearing by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.01.2022 disallowed the appeal affirming the judgment and order  passed  by  the  trial  court.  At this  juncture,  the  petitioner, moved this Court by filing this revision and obtained the present Rule and order of stay.

The  opposite-party  Nos.  1  and  2  though  entered  into appearance but did not file any counter-affidavit and opposed the Rule.

 Mr. Shishir Kanti Mazumder, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that after obtaining Rule and order of stay the plaintiff got his building construction completed without any obstruction  and  hindrances  from  any  quarter  as  such,  the  very purpose of the plaintiff has been served. This is a suit for permanent injunction  to  prevent  the  defendants  from  dispossessing  the plaintiff, obstructing construction of building in any manner. Since the cause of action and relief sought for has become redundant, no formal order restraining the defendants is required at this stage. He candidly submits that by disposing this Rule, the trial court may be directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.

In view of the above submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, I think that the purpose of the parties will serve if the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible by disposing the Rule.

 Accordingly, the Rule is disposed of, however, without any order as to costs.

The trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit within a shortest possible time taking into consideration of the situations stated hereinabove, in accordance with law.

Order of stay stands vacated.

Communicate a copy of the judgment to the Court concerned

at once.

Helal-ABO