Present:

Mr. Justice A.K.M. Asaduzzaman

Civil Revision No. 5353 of 2022

Rabeya Abedin

……………Petitioner.

-Versus-

Mst. Sufia Begum and others

………….Opposite parties. Mrs. Shiuli Khanom, Advocate

…. For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Ahsanullah, Advocate with

Mr. B.M. Maklechur Rahman, Adv.

….. For the opposite parties.

Heard and judgment on 5th March, 2024. A.K.M.Asaduzzaman,J.

Opposite party as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 18 of 2022,

challenging a succession certificate issued by the local chairman regard being the ownership of the landed properties of Late Kamrul Ahsan Khan Santi, before the Court of Assistant Judge,

Motlob, Chandpur impleading the petitioner as the defendant, who is the wife of late Kamrul Ahsan Khan Santi.

During pendency of the suit on 11.5.2022, plaintiff filed three applications, one is for recalling the P.W.1 and another is under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint and another is for calling the registered volume of the Nikahnama at the stage of argument of the case.

Learned Assistant Judge rejected the three applications vide order dated 16.05.2022.

Challenging the said order plaintiff moved a revision before the Court of District Judge, Chandpur in Civil Revision No. 18 of 2022, who by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2022 allowed the revision and after reversing the order of the trial court allowed the three applications.

Challenging the said order of the District Judge, defendant petitioner moved before this court for Leave under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure but due to inadvertently instead of granted leave instant rule was issued.

In view of the above factual aspect of this case main question to be decided in these applications as to whether the order passed by the District Judge in allowing the above three applications was at all justified or not.

Mrs. Shiuli Khanom, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner drawing my attention to the provision as laid down under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure submits that in order to get an order to recall any witness, who has already been examined, applicant is required to furnish the questions in the said application, which he needs to re-examine from him but in the instant case no such question has been put forward in the said application. The learned advocate further drawing my attention to the amended provision of the Code of Civil Procedure submits that at present no application for amendment would be allowed after the trial has commenced under Order 6 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the court is of the opinion that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before, during the commencement of trial. In the instant case there is no such averment in the application for amendment of the plaint. The learned advocate further submits that when the deceased Kamrul Ahsan Khan died long before and put several signature in different needs in different manner and it is very difficult to find his admitted signatures, the order passed by the Revisional court allowing the said application for examining the Handwriting Expert in the Nikahnama along with any signature of the admitted document it is apparently impossible and the order passed by the District Judge is not executable and accordingly it is liable to be set aside. She finally prays that since in view of the above factual aspect of this case all the applications of the plaintiff appears to be not in consistent with the law, fact and circumstances of this case and was made at the very belated stage of the proceedings, trial court has rightly rejected the same applications. But the Revisional court without applying judicial mind most arbitrarily allowed the applications. The impugned order is thus not sustainable in law, which is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Md. Ahsanullah, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party frankly considered that although the application for rec