Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque Civil Revision No. 6067 of 2023

Farhana Yasmin

...... Petitioner -Versus-

Md. Rashedul Alam and another

..... Opposite-Parties Mr. Ramzan Ali Sikder, Senior Advocate with Mr. Md. Motahar Hossain, Advocate and

Mr. Nazmul Hossain Chowdhury, Advocate

… For the Petitioner

Ms. Syeda Nasrin, Advocate with

Mr. Razu Howlader Palash, Advocate

Mr. Sultan Ahmed, Advocate

Mr. Forhad Hossain, Advocate

Mr. Murad Hossain, Advocate

Mr. Bibak Chandra, Advocate

Mr. Golam Kibria Sourav, Advocate

Mr. Saddam Hossain, Advocate and

Ms. Jannat Peya, Advocate

… For the Opposite Party No. 1

Judgment on 25.01.2024

In this revision Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhaka in Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No. 560 of 2023 not considering the prayer for ad- interim injunction at the time of issuing show cause notice should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court

may seem fit and proper.

Shorn of unnecessary details, fact of the case lies in a narrow compus. The opposite party, as owner in possession of the property measuring 3.59 katha bearing Plot Nos. 9-10, Road No. 1, Block-E,

Section-1, Police Station-Shah Ali, Mirpur, Dhaka-1216 by way of gift from his father Khairul Alam Chowdhury. The opposite party No. 1 on receipt of consideration for half portion of property from the petitioner entered into a registered agreement No. 8178 dated 23.08.2017 for construction of a multistoried building thereon in equal share. The opposite party delayed execution of the work as per terms and conditions of the agreement. But during existence of the agreement between the parties, he without knowledge of the petitioner unfortunately engaged another developer named “Emas Engineering Solution” by executing an unregistered agreement and empowered the developer company to act on his behalf by executing a registered Power of Attorney No. 591 dated 12.09.2022. The petitioner used to live in abroad and in his absence the opposite party inspite of receiving Tk. 1,04,00,000/- (One crore four lac) from the petitioner fraudulently entered into an agreement with the developer company with an intention to deprive the petitioner from his legal right of 50% share of the property. Because of non-co operation and entering into an agreement with the developer during existence of the agreement in between the petitioner and the opposite party, a dispute has arisen, consequently, the petitioner served a notice upon the opposite party referring the matter to the arbitration by appointing his arbitrator and requesting the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator on his behalf, but the opposite party in reply to the notice instead of appointing his arbitrator raised a claim against the petitioner with a demand to be filled in within seven days.

Hence, the petitioner moved before the learned District Judge, Dhaka by filing Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No. 559 of 2023 under section 12 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of opposite party. When the opposite party hurriedly started construction on the property in question with the help of the developer, the petitioner has filed Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No. 560 of 2023 under section 7A of the Arbitration Act 2001 before the District Judge, Dhaka seeking an order of injunction till disposal of arbitration proceeding. Learned District Judge after hearing by the impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2023 issued notice to show cause upon the opposite party No. 1 for ten days as to why he shall not be restrained by an order of temporary injunction as prayed for. Because of urgency of the matter, the petitioner moved this Court by filing this revision and obtained the present Rule and order of ad-interim injunction.

The opposite party appeared in the rule and moved before the Appellate Divisi