IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed

Civil Revision No. 1952 of 2013

Md. Nazmul Matubbar being minor represented by his father Nur Islam Matubbar

........ Petitioner

-Versus-

Khabir Sheikh and others

....... Opposite parties

Mr. Md. Amimul Ehsan, Advocate

........ For the petitioner Mr. Mohammad Ali Azam, Advocate

.... For the opposite party No. 1

Heard and Judgment on: 22.08.2024

In the instant civil revisional application filed under Section 115(1)  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  this  Court  on  09.06.2013 issued a Rule calling upon the opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to  why  the  judgment  and  order  dated  14.11.2012  passed  by  the learned Joint District Judge, Faridpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 69 of 2010 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sadarpur (Bhanga), Faridpur in Miscellaneous (Pre-emption) Case No. 43 of 2006 rejecting the pre-emption case should not be set aside.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, the petitioner was a minor. Now, he has attained the majority. Today, the preemptee petitioner and preemptor opposite party No. 1 have jointly filed an application

2

for compromise. It is stated at paragraph No. 6 of the said application that  being  advised  by  the  well  wishers,  the  parties  decided  to compromise  the  matter  and  on  11.03.2024  executed  a  notarized solenama regarding the instant case. According to said solenama, the petitioner would get the land according to the impugned sale deed and preemptor Khabir Sheikh would get back the money deposited by him in the trial Court. The original copy of the solenama has been annexed to the application for compromise as Annexure-X.

I have heard the learned Advocates of both sides and perused the materials on record. Both the preemptee-petitioner and preemptor- opposite party No. 1 are present before the Court. I have examined them. I am satisfied that the solenama has been duly executed by the parties  and  that  they  have  agreed  to  the  terms  and  conditions contained therein.

Accordingly, the application for compromise is allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of the application for compromise.

The impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2012 passed by the Joint District Judge, Faridpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 69 of 2010 is hereby set aside.

No order as to cost.

Office is directed to send down the L.C.R. at once.