Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque

Civil Rule No. 906 (Con) of 2014

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh,  represented  by  Deputy Commissioner, Pabna

              ... Petitioner -Versus-

Md. Jaynal Abedin and others 

...Opposite-Parties

Mst. Rohani Siddiqua, AAG with

Mr. Manowarul Islam, AAG

  ...For the Petitioner Mr.  Sheikh  Awsafur  Rahman,  Senior Advocate with

Mr. Rafiqul Islam Faruk, Advocate

                                                            ...For the Opposite-Party No.1.

Judgment on 11th December, 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 5202 days in filing Civil Revision against  the  impugned  judgment  and  decree  dated  08.03.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Pabna in Other Class Appeal No. 59 of 1980 disallowing the appeal and thereby  affirming  the  judgment  and  decree  dated  06.03.1980 passed  by  the  learned  Subordinate  Judge  (now  Joint  District Judge), Pabna in Other Class Suit No. 72 of 1975 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. Manowarul Islam, learned Assistant Attorney General appearing  for  the  petitioner-government  submits  that  the revisional  application  against  the  judgment  and  decree  dated 08.03.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Pabna in Other Class Appeal No. 59 of 1980 disallowing the  appeal  has  been  filed  at  a  delay  of  5202  days  with  this application for condonation of such delay. It is submitted that because of delay in communication between the different offices of the government and in drafting civil revision by the Attorney General  Office,  revision  could  not  be  filed  within  time.  He submits that the delay was not intentional and there is no laches on the part of the government. Unless the delay is condoned, the government  will  suffer  irreparable  loss,  as  such,  prays  for condonation of such delay.

Mr. Awsafur Rahman  appearing with Mr.  Rafiqul Islam Faruk, learned Advocates for the opposite-party No. 1 submit that the land described in the schedule to the plaint originally belonged to  Haridasi  and  others.  The  appellant  preferred  Other  Class Appeal No. 59 of 1985 against the judgment and decree passed in Other  Class  Suit  No.  72  of  1975  which  was  disallowed  on 08.03.2000. This instant civil revision has been preferred by the government  against  the  judgment  and  decree  passed  by  the appellate court at a delay of 5202 days without showing sufficient cause, as such, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

Heard  the  learned  Assistant  Attorney  General  Mr. Manowarul Islam for the government-petitioner and Mr. Awsafur Rahman  for  the  opposite-party  No.  1,  have  gone  through  the application for condonation of delay and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below.

Admittedly, the suit was filed by the opposite-party against the  government  and  others  for  declaration  of  title  in  the  suit property, which was decreed on contest. Thereafter, the appellant preferred Other Class Appeal No. 59 of 1980. The appeal was heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Pabna  who  by  the  judgment  and  decree  dated  08.03.2000 disallowed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. The explanation given in the application constitutes no sufficient cause for such delay. Moreover, it was in the knowledge of the government that the appeal was dismissed on 08.03.2000 as appearing  from  the  application  for  condonation  of  delay. However, to appreciate, whether in the event of condoning delay the petitioner-government has any possibility for succeeding in the revision, I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and finds that the government could not produce  any  evidence  to  substantiate  its  claim,  moreover,  this revision has been preferred after inordinate delay, as such, for a fruitless litigation there is no reason for entertaining this revision after long long delay. Hence, I find no merit in the application and reason  for  condonation  of  delay.  Accordingly,  the  application deserves  no  consideration.  Moreover,  it  discloses no  sufficient cause, rather I find serious laches on the part of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the above, this Court finds  no merit in the Rule.

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

The revisional application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby rejected summarily being hopelessly barred by limitation. 

Communicate  a  copy  of  the  judgment  to  the  Court concerned at once.

Helal/ABO