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 - Discharged C.R. No. 3675 of 2022 dt. 28.07.2024 against order injunction

             Present:

                               Mr. Justice A.K.M. Asaduzzaman

                    Civil Revision No. 3675 of 2022

                                     S.M. Habibur Rahman and another

       ………… Petitioners.           -Versus-

Executive  Director,  Western  Gas Company Ltd. and others

               ………….Opposite parties.                                      Ms. Olia Ferdous, Advocate

                                                       .........For the petitioners. Mr. S.M. Saiful Islam, Advocate

......... For the opposite parties.

                            Heard and judgment on 28th July, 2024. A.K.M.Asaduzzaman,J.

This rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the District Judge, Sirajgonj in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 2020 affirming those dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Sirajgonj in rejecting an application


1

for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be set aside.

Petitioner as plaintiff filed Other Class Suit No. 17 of 2020 before  the  Court  of  Assistant  Judge,  Sirajgonj  for  permanent injunction against the opposite parties.

Plaint case in short, inter alia, is that the owner of the suit land was Ali Akber, who was the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 and as they enjoying the property jointly they took the gas connection in the name of their elder brother namely S.M. Alauddin (defendant No.4) but in the map marking as ‘K’ of the connection there was clearly shown that there are three gas burner which were using by these three brothers from 25.06.2007 and since then the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and the defendant No.4 are enjoying the gas connection peacefully and at the time when the defendant No.4 started to constructing his 4 storied building by demolishing his tin shed house, the gas connection of the plaintiffs were  temporarily  suspended  on  an  written  application  to  the defendant No.4 but in this situation, the defendant No.4 with the collusion  of  the  defendant  No.1-3  took  the  connection  of  the plaintiffs  in  his  4  storied  building  and  after  knowing  that  the plaintiffs  gave  written  objection  and  the  connection  was disconnected by the defendant No.1-3 and thereafter the defendant No.4  many  times  trying  to  connect  the  gas  connection  of  the plaintiffs and made Shalish in the Chairman office and in that Salish it was decided by both the parties by executing a Shalish Nama  that  plaintiffs  No.1-2  will  use  two  connections  and defendant No.4 will use the other one but the defendant No.4 without  comply  of  the  condition  of  the  Shalish  illegally  and unlawfully trying to connect the gas connections of the plaintiffs to his buildings with the collusion of the defendant No.1-3 and in this situation, the plaintiffs are compelled to file the instant suit of permanent injunction. Hence the case.

On 19.02.2020 plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order of temporary  injunction  in  the  terms  of  not  connecting  the  gas connection illegally and forcefully by the defendant Nos. 1-3 to the defendant No.4 beyond the plan/map in the schedule land.

By the order dated 12.11.2020, the Assistant Judge rejected the said application finally.

Challenging  the  said  order  plaintiff  petitioner  preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 2020 before the Court of District Judge, Sirajgonj, who by the impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Challenging the said judgment and order petitioner obtained the instant rule.

Ms. Olia Ferdous, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner drawing my attention to the judgment of the trial court submits that trial court totally failed to consider that property was inherited  by  the  plaintiffs  and  the  defendant  No.4  from  their father, wherein conjugative gas connection was obtained in the name  of  the  defendant  No.4 and subsequently  as  and  when  a multistoried  building  was  constructed  in  the  suit  land  by  the defendant No.4 and a gas connection was stopped/ disconnect by the defendant Nos. 1-3 but thereafter defendant No.4 with the help of Defendant Nos.1-3 try to reconnect the gas line illegally and thereby  plaintiffs  were  going  to  deprive  from  getting  gas connection  as  such  the  plaintiffs  filed  the  application  for temporary injunction not to give an illegal connection but the court below totally failed to consider the nature and feature of the case and most illegally held that the balance of convenience and inconvenience  not  in  favour  of  the  plaintiffs  illegally.  The impugned judgment is thus not sustainable in law, which is liable to be set aside.

Mr. S.M. Saiful Islam, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand submits that court below rightly held that plaintiffs by way of an undertaking given on 26.06.2007 a gas connection was been given to defendant No.4 in the suit land and since the plaintiffs allowed to obtain connections to the defendant No.4, court below rightly found that the plaintiffs has admitted the connection of the defendant No.4 as well as waived out their right to challenge the connection given to the defendant  No.4.  Noticing the  same  court below  committed no illegality in refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The impugned judgment contains no illegality, rule contains no merits, it may be discharged.

Heard the learned advocate and perused the judgment and the documents annexed to the application.

In  a  suit  for  permanent  injunction,  plaintiff  prayed  for temporary injunction on the point that defendant No. 1-3 may not give  illegal  gas  connection  to  the  defendant  No.4  in  the  suit premises. Trial court while deciding the application for injunction has seen the file of the connection line of the gas connections as been produced by the defendant No.1-3.

Going through the said records, trial court observed that the gas connection in the suit premises was given on the application filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants as well as connection has given  in  favour  of  the  defendant  No.4  in  his  name  on  the undertaking  given  on  27.06.2007  by  the  plaintiff.  Plaintiffs allowed the gas company to connect the gas connection in the name as well as in favour of defendant No.4 accordingly court below  found  that  balance  of  convenience  or  inconvenience  to obtain injunction in favour of the defendants. The connection as been given to defendant No.4 contains no illegality.

Admittedly suit property was belonged to the father of the defendants and a gas connection was obtained while there was a tin shed in the name of the defendant No.4 where plaintiff allowed to  get  connection  by  the  defendant  No.4  in  his  name  by  an undertaking given on 27.06.2007 but thereafter defendant No.4 made a further construction by way of high-rise building wherein he also required further connection on his buildings along with plaintiffs, who are the admitted brother of the defendant No.4, who also needs to have their separate connection into their names. It  is  the  business  of  the  defendant  No.1-3  to  provide  new connection  or  additional  connection  in  the  gas  line  on  a  suit premises, wherein obviously plaintiffs has got the legal claims to get separate connection when the suit property as been demarked and  partitioned  amongst  their  brothers  plaintiff  Nos.  1-2  with defendant No.4.

The gas company obviously considered the prayer of the plaintiff together their connection in the premises. The learned advocate Mr. S.M. Saiful Islam appearing for the defendant No.4 agreed on behalf of his client to help the plaintiffs to get gas connection in the suit premises.

However in the order passed by the court below on refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs not to reconnect the gas lines to defendant No.4 since contains no illegality. I find no merits in the rule.


In the result, the Rule is discharged.

However the trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the case expeditiously as early as possible in the meantime defendant Nos. 1-3 gas connection company will take the application of the plaintiff to get gas connection to the premises of the plaintiff No. 1 and 2.

The order of status-quo granted earlier is hereby recalled and vacated.

Communicate the judgment at once.