IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

Civil Revision No. 2997 of 2006

Laila Begum and others

--------- plaintiff-petitioners =Versus=

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Cox’s Bazar and others.

------- Defendant-opposite-parties.

Mr. Saleh Mahmood Nahid, Advocate

------ For the petitioners Ms. Shahida Khatoon, AAG

------ For the opposite-parties

Heard on: 14.03.2017, 19.03.2017, 02.04.2017and

Judgment on 09.04.2017

At the instance of the plaintiff- petitioners Laila Begum and others, leave was granted and Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parity No. 1 to show cause as to why the order No. 1 dated 30.07.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Cox’s Bazar in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2006 rejecting the Civil Revision Summarily at the time of admission hearing of the same affirming the order No. 29 dated 13.07.2006 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, in charge of the Court of the Assistant Judge, Moheskhali, Cox’s Bazar in Other Class Suit No. 140 of 2004 allowing the application filed under order IX Rule 13 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be set aside.

The relevant facts for disposal of this Rule, inter alia, are that the present petitioners as the plaintiffs filed the Other Class Suit No. 140 of 2004 in the court of the learned Assistant Judge, Moheskhali, Cox’s Bazar, for the declaration of title upon the land described in the schedule 1 and 2 of the plaint and also for declaration that B.S. Khatain in the name of the defendant No. 5, the Government in the said schedule of land without any basis.

The case in the plaint in short is that the schedule land described in the plaint originally belong to Khirode Chandra Roy, Ajit Kumar Roy and Indra Kumari Roy. The said owners were represented by the Deity named Sree Sree Karunamoyee Gopinath, and R.S. Khatian was published in their names after death of Khirode Chandra Roy. Ajit Kumar Roy settled land orally to different persons including the present plaintiff Nos. 1-6, and also to one Aflatoon, the predecessor of the plaintiff Nos. 7-13 by the un- registered Amaldaripatra dated 28th Choitra, 1350 B.S. thereby, the plaintiffs became owners by the operation of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs thereafter sold a huge measurement of land to different persons, and the said plaintiffs also thereafter, transferred some portion of land to the defendant Nos. 18-27. On 21.11.2004 the plaintiffs could know that land has been recorded in P.S. and B.S. Kahtian equivalent to M.R.R and B.S Khatian published in the name of the said Ajit Kumar Roy and the B.S. Khatian in the name of the present defendant opposite parity No. 5, the Government, respectively. Thus the suit was filed.

The said suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1-4 by filing a written statement. But the present defendant No. 5, the Government and at present the opposite party No. 1 did not appear in the suit even the notices were served upon the said defendant. In course of the hearing the defendant Nos. 1-4, compromised with the plaintiffs but the defendant No. 5 could not enter into the suit. The said suit was decreed on compromise between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1-4 and exparte against the defendant No. 5 by the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2006.

The present defendant No. 5 - opposite party No. 1 filed an application on 07.05.2006 under Order IX Rule 13 and 13A of the Code of Civil Procedure in the trial court for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2006 and for restoring the Other Class Suit No. 140 of 2004 to its original file and number. After hearing the parties the learned Assistant Judge, Moheskhali, Cox’s Bazar, allowed the application by the order No. 29 dated 13.07.2006 in order to restore the said suit. Being aggrieve the present petitioner as the petitioners filed the Civil Revision No. 21 o