IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

CIVIL REVISION NO. 2589 OF 2016.

In the matter of:

An application Under Section 115(1) of the Code of

Civil Procedure.

AND

In the matter of: Md. Ferdous Alam

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

Mr. In Muk Park and another

...... Opposite Parties None appears

... For the petitioner None appears

……or the opposite parties Heard and Judgment on 20.02.2024.

Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah, J:

At the instance of plaintiff in Money Suit No. 22 of 2012, this rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order dated 29.05.2016 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st court, Chattogram in that Money Suit rejecting an application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure attachment

of the suit property before judgment should not be set-aside and/or pass

such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and

proper.

The short facts leading to issuance of the instant rule are:

The present petitioner as plaintiff originally filed the aforesaid suit

claiming an amount of taka 45,00000/- seeking following reliefs:

(L) h¡c£ LaѪL 1ew ¢hh¡c£−L ¢h¢iæ a¡¢l−Mlagreement

j§−m fËc¡eL«a 1(L) ag¢p−m ¢m¢fL«a pwMÉ¡ j−a 45,00,000/- (fuya¡¢õn mr) V¡L¡ Bc¡−ul ¢e¢jš h¡c£l Ae¤L¨−m J 1ew ¢hh¡c£l

¢hl¦−Ü ¢Xœ²£ qu ;

13. Aœ j¡jm¡ c¡−ull L¡m qC−a BcuaL 1ew ¢hh¡c£l

¢hl¦−Ü 1(®L) Ag¢p−m¡š²45,00,000/- (fuya¡¢õn mr) V¡L¡l

Efl hÉ¡wL ®lC−Y r¢af§lZ fËc¡−el ¢Xœ²£ qu;

14. Bc¡m−al eÉ¡u ¢hQ¡−l h¡c£ BCeax J eÉ¡uax Bl ®k

®k f¢ÊaL¡l f¡Ju¡l qLc¡l a¡q¡ ®cJu¡l ¢X¢œ² q|k z

15. j¡jm¡l MlQ 1ew ¢hh¡c£l ¢hl¦−Ü ®cJu¡l ¢hq£a j¢SÑ

quz

On the date of filing the suit dated 04.11.2012 the plaintiff also

filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil

Procedure praying for attaching the schedule 1 property where a shoe

factory is located or to transfer the share of the said shoe company to

anybody else other than the plaintiff-petitioner or to misappropriate the

money invested by the plaintiff in the schedule ‘ka’ factory. The learned

judge of the trial court however took up the said application on

29.05.2016 for hearing and passed the impugned order holding that, there has been no particulars of the property to be attached either in the plaint or in the application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It is at that stage the plaintiff as petitioner came before this court and obtained the instant rule.

None appeared either for the petitioner or for the opposite parties to press or oppose the rule.

However, I have gone through the grounds so have been couched in the revisional application. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant no. 1 is a Korian national who had shoe factory in Gazipur and out of the close relationship with the said defendant no. 1 the plaintiff invested an amount of taka 17,00000/- following the commitment from the defendant no. 1 that, he would be given shares in the said company vis-a-vis the profit to be accrued from the company. In the midst of investment, the defendant also promised to paid an amount of taka 45,00000/- to the plaintiff but since on repeated reminders, the defendant did neither make any payment of taka 45,00000/- give any share to the plaintiff that compelled him to file the Money Suit. During pendency of the suit since the plaintiff got suspicious that, the defendant could leave the country and t