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 - final- Civil Revision No. 269 of 2014 _decree_ disposed of with modification 05.09.2024

    Present:

Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal Civil Revision No. 269 of 2014 Chunnu Sheikh and others

.…. Plaintiff-petitioners. Versus

Tofazzol Hossain and others

                     ……..Defendant-opposite Parties.

Mr. Porob Naser Siddique with

Mr. George Chowdhury, Advocates.

                            .…For the plaintiff-petitioners. Mr. S.M.A. Sabur, Advocate

              ....For the Defendant-opposite-parties. Heard on 27.08.2024, 05.09.2024 and

Judgment on 05.09.2024

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 (decree signed on 31.07.2013) passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Gopalgonj in Title Appeal No. 48 of 2012 dismissing the appeal modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 (decree signed on 04.01.2012) passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Muksudpur, Gopalgonj in Title Suit No. 8 of 2010 should not be set-aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Material  facts  of  the  case,  briefly,  are  that  the  opposite parties as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 8 of 2010 in the Court of  the  learned  Assistant  Judge,  Muksudpur,  Gopalgonj  for partitioning the property as described in the schedule of the plaint.


1

Defendant  Nos.  1-3  contested  the  suit  by  filing  written statements denying all the material averments made in the plaint and  defendant  No.3  claimed  separate  saham  stating  that  he purchased total 20 decimals land and that he is entitled to get saham of the said 20 decimals of land in accordance with law.  

At the trial the plaintiff side examined 3 witnesses and the defendant  side  examined  7  witnesses  and  both  the  parties exhibited some documents to prove their respective cases.

The learned Assistant Judge, Muksudpur, Gopalgonj after hearing the parties and on considering the evidence and materials on record by his judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 decreed the suit in-part.

On appeal, being Title Appeal No. 48 of 2012 the learned Joint  District  Judge,  1st  Court,  Gopalgonj  by  the  impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 dismissed the appeal and affirmed  the  judgment  and  decree  of  the  trial  Court  dated 29.11.2011.

Aggrieved plaintiffs then preferred this revision application and obtained the present rule.

Mr. Porob Naser Siddique with Mr. George Chowdhury, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff-petitioners at the very outset takes me through the pleadings of the parties and other materials on record including the judgments of both the Courts below and then submits that in the facts and circumstances of  the  case  the  plaintiffs  are  entitled  to  get  saham  of  48.86

decimals of land although the appellate Court below gave only 18 decimals of land.

Mr. S.M.A. Sabur, the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant-opposite  parties,  on  the  other  hand,  supports  the judgments of 2 Courts below except the finding of lower appellate court that

. He next points out that the

defendant  No.1  admittedly  transferred  20  decimals  of  land  to defendant No.3 and that the defendant No. 3 is entitled to get saham of the said 20 decimals land and in this way the defendant

No.1 is entitled 23 decimals but the Court of appeal below did not give him the said saham stating that defendant No.1 did not claim any separate saham in paying court fees in accordance with law.

I  have  gone  through  the  judgments  pronounced  by  the Courts  below.  It  is  seen  that  the  Court  of  appeal  below  on technical ground did not give saham in favour of the defendant No. 1.

On a query from the Court the learned Advocate for the plaintiff petitioners finds him difficult to repeal the contention raised  by  Mr.  Sabur,  the  learned  Advocate  for  the  defendant opposite parties.

Now, to cut short the matter, I like to quote hereunder a portion from the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:

 

 

From the above, it appears that the Court of appeal below did not give any saham to defendant No. 1 on technical ground.

 Mr. Sabur, the learned Advocate for the defendant-opposite parties submits that his party being defendant No.1 is willing to pay  proper court  fees for his saham  at  the  time  of execution process.

The learned Advocate for the plaintiff-petitioners, however, does not oppose the contention raised by Mr. Sabur, the learned Advocate for the defendant-opposite parties.

Mere on technical ground a party cannot be debarred from his proper saham, if he wants to pay appropriate Court fees at the time of execution process. The execution court shall consider to

grant remaining 23  decimals of land in favour of the defendant No. 1 Tofazzal, if he prays his saham on payment of proper court fees.

In a suit of this nature the finding of the lower appellate court being of the court of appeal below  

does not deserve to be sustained.

     Accordingly, the Rule is disposed of with modification in the above manner. The finding portion being from the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2013 is set-aside. The order of stay and status-quo granted earlier by this Court stands vacated.

Let a copy of this judgment along with lower Courts’ record be sent down at once.