District- Khulna

    In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

        High Court Division

(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr Justice Md Atoar Rahman Civil Revision No. 2700 of 1996 Monoranjan Roy

…-petitioner

- versus-

Md. Anwar Hossain and another

              …- opposite parties

No one appears

          ….for the petitioner No one appears

… for the opposite parties.

Judgment on: 18.03.2024

This Rule was issued on an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order No. 37 dated 23.07.1996 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge and Small Causes Court, Khulna in SCC case No. 04 of 1992 should not be set aside and/or passed such other or further orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

The short facts for the purpose of disposal of the Rule are that the opposite parties being petitioners filed SCC case No. 04 of 1992 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge and and Small Causes Court, Khulna against the petitioner praying for ejectment on the ground that

the petitioner opposite party was a defaulter and the case premises was bonafide required for reconstruction. The opposite party petitioner contested the SCC case by filing written objection denying the material allegations made in the application. After filing written objection on 07.02.1994, the opposite party petitioner filed an application in the Small Cause Court for staying further proceeding of the SCC case till disposal of the Title Appeal No. 147 of 1991. The petitioner opposite party filed written objection against the application. Learned Judge of the Small Causes Court after hearing both the parties rejected the application for stay by his judgment and order No. 37 dated 23.07.1996.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above judgment and order the defendant petitioner moved to this court with an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and obtained the present Rule.

No one appears for either of the parties.

I have perused the application and record along with the impugned judgment and other connected papers on record.

It transpires that learned Judge rejected the application for stay by following order :

“h¡c£fr q¡¢Sl¡ c¡¢Mm L¢lu¡−Rz 1ew ¢hh¡c£fr q¡¢Sl¡ c¡¢Mm L¢lu¡−Rz 1ew ¢hh¡c£fr ¢g¢l¢Ù¹ ¢m¢Maj−a L¡NSfœ c¡¢Mm L−l B−Rz Bf¢š

pqL¡−l Ae¤¢m¢f ¢h¢m qCu¡−Rz Na Cw- 7/2/94 a¡¢l−M a¡¢l−M 1ew ¢hh¡c£l c¡¢MmL«a Aœ ®j¡LŸj¡l L¡kÉœ²j ÙÛ¢Na l¡M¡l fСbÑe¡ Hhw ac¢hl¦−Ü 8/2/94 a¡¢l−M c¡¢MmL«a Bf¢š öe¡e£l SeÉ e¢b ®fn Ll¡ qCmz Eiuf−rl ¢eLV qC−a ö¢em¡jz clM¡Ù¹, Bf¢š, c¡¢M¢m L¡NS¢c Hhw e¢b ®c¢Mm¡jz Aœ ®j¡LŸj¡l ¢hh¡c£ü£L«a j−aC f§hÑha£Ñ j¡−m−Ll i¡s¡¢Vu¡ ¢Rmz e¡x Sj¡S¢j ih−el j¡¢mL¡e¡üa A¢dL¡−ll c¡h£ ¢hh¡c£ L−l e¡ Hhw Aœ −j¡LŸj¡l ¢hQ¡kÑ ¢hou J a¡q¡ e−qz e¡x ih−el p−‰ pÇfªš²f§hÑha£Ñ ¢p¢im ¢l¢ine ew- 1465/94

Hl ¢pÜ¡¿¹C Aœ −j¡LŸj¡l SeÉ J fÐ−k¡SÉ qC−a−Rz Aœ −j¡LŸj¡l ¢hQ¡l pÇfæ qC−mJ ¢hh¡c£l ®L¡e r¢a e¡C HC SeÉ ®k ®p i¡s¡¢Vu¡ ¢qp¡−h a¡q¡l BCe ¢pÜ p¤¢hd¡ f¡C−hz AeÉ¢c−L ÙÛ¢Na¡−cn ®cJu¡ qC−m Hhw k¢c ®pC ®r−œ ®p E−µRc−k¡NÉ qu a¡q¡ qC−m a¡q¡ j¡¢mL f−rl SeÉ r¢al L¡le qC−hz Hja¡hÙÛ¡u h¡c£l Bf¢šNË¡qÉ qCm Hhw ¢hh¡c£l ÙÛ¢Na¡−cn Hl fСbÑe¡ e¡j”¤l Ll¡ qCmz BN¡j£ 14/8/96 a¡w-Cp¤É NWez”

From the above order it appears that learned trial Judge rightly and perfectly rejected the application holding that there is no valid ground to pass an order staying the SCC case and I do not find any merit in the Rule, and as, such the same is liable to be discharged.

In the result the Rule in discharged without any order as to cost The impugned judgment and order is hereby affirmed

Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted at once.