IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed

Civil Revision No. 5132 of 2023

Modinatul Uloom Masna Madrasha Jame Masjid, represented by its President.

........ Defendant No. 13-appellant-petitioner -Versus-

Md. Mohsin Morol and others

.... Opposite parties

Mr. S.M. Shakhawat Hossain, Advocate

........ For petitioner Mr. Ajit Sil, Advocate

.... For opposite party No. 1

Heard and Judgment on: 21.08.2024

In the instant revisional application filed under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the defendant No. 13-appellant-petitioner, this Court on 10.10.2023 issued a Rule calling upon the opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 30.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Jashore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2023 affirming the judgment and order dated 09.04.2023 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Monirampur, Jashore in Title Suit No. 149 of 2022 should not be set aside.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court passed an interim order  directing  the  parties  to  maintain  status  quo  in  respect  of possession and position of the suit land for a period of 6 months which  was  extended  till  disposal  of  the  Rule,  vide  order  dated 21.03.2024.

The  plaintiff-respondent-opposite  party  No.  1  has  entered appearance in the Rule.

The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 149 of 2022 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Monirampur, Jashore impleading the present petitioner and others as defendants for declaration of title simpliciter in  the  suit  land.  The  contesting  defendants  including  the  present petitioner have filed written statement in the suit. The suit is now fixed for framing of issues.

After filing the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary  injunction  praying  for restraining the defendant No.  13 (present petitioner) from entering the suit land forcibly, not to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the same and not to make construction  in  the  suit  land.  The  defendant  No.  13  filed  written objection against the said application for injunction. The trial Court heard the parties, perused the materials on record and being satisfied passed an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. The appellate Court below affirmed the order of injunction passed by the trial Court. The defendant No. 13, against whom the injunction order was passed, filed the instant civil revision, obtained a Rule and order of status quo.

I have heard the learned Advocates of both sides and perused the materials on records. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the interim order of status quo passed at the time of issuance of instant Rule is just and proper.

Accordingly, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the suit land till disposal of the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

With above observation and directions, the Rule is disposed of.

Mazhar, BO