IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Badruzzaman.

Civil Revision No. 3596 of 2012.

Md. Selamat Ullah Miji

...Petitioner.

-Versus-

Most. Solema Begum and others

....Opposite parties. Mr. Md. Muzahedul Islam, with

Mr. Abdul Karim, Advocates.

...For the petitioner.

Mr. Gowranga Chandra Kar, Advocate.

...For the opposite parties. Heard on: 17.12.2023, 18.12.2023 and 11.02.2024. Judgment on: 18.02.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why judgment and order dated 30.08.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandpur in Civil Revision No. 11 of 2011, dismissing the revision and affirming judgment and order dated 06.01.2011 passed by learned Assistant Judge Faridgonj, Chandpur in Miscellaneous Pre-emption Case No. 01 of 2007 rejecting an application under Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint along with the prayer for accepting outstanding deposit.

Relevant facts, for the purpose of disposal of this Rule, are that opposite party No. 1 as pre-emptor filed Pre-emption Case No. 1 of 2007 in the Court of Assistant Judge Faridgonj, Chandpur under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act for enforcement of the right of pre-emption of 0.11 acre of land transferred vide registered deed No. 62900 dated 07.12.2006. During filing of the application the pre-emptor deposited the consideration of Tk. 60,000/= with compensation at the rate of Taka 10%. The Case was contested by the petitioner pre-emptee by filing written objection contending, inter alia, that the pre-emption case is not maintainable and barred under section 96(3) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act.

In course of trial, the pre-emptor adduced three witnesses and the pre-emptee purchaser adduced three witnesses to prove their respective case and the case was fixed for argument hearing. At that stage the pre-emptor filed an application under Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to introduce the fact that balance 15% of the consideration money and interest for an amount of Taka 800/= from 07.12.2006 to 11.01.2007 has been deposited, vide Challan. The pre-emptee opposite party No. 1 filed written objection against the application stating that there was no scope under the provision of State Acquisition and Tenancy Act to deposit balance compensation after filing of the case and accordingly, the application for amendment seeking to acceptance of balance deposit is not maintainable.

Upon hearing the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2011 rejected the application fixing next date for argument hearing. Said order dated 06.01.2011 was challenged by the pre- emptor in Civil Revision No. 11 of 2011 before the learned District Judge, Chandpur which was heard by learned Additional District

Judge, Chandpur, who, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision by affirming the order of the trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2012.

Opposite party No. 1 has entered appearance by failing Vokalatnama to contest the Rule.

Mr. Md. Muzahedul Islam, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that due to bona fide mistake on the part of the learned Advocate for the pre-emptor the entire amount as provided under sub-section (3) of section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act could not be deposited at the time of filing of the application for pre-emption and the Court has authority to accept deficit compensation after filing of the case but the trial Court as well as the revisional Court upon misconception of law refused