IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CIVIL REVISION NO. 2693 OF 2014

In the matter of:

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

Civil Procedure, 1908.

AND

In the matter of:

Broj Lal Pal, son of late Ombika Charan Pal of Village- Pashim Fotehpur, Police Station- Sadar, District- Noakhali.

.... Petitioner -Versus-

Uttam kumar Pal, son of late Har Lal Pal of Village- Master Para, Police Station- Sadar, District- Noakhali and others.

....Opposite-parties Mr. Montu Lal Das, Advocate

... For the petitioner None appears

....For the opposite-parties

Heard and Judgment on 31.10.2024.

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

And

Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah, J:

At the instance of the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 44 of 2011, this rule was issued calling upon the opposite-parties to show cause as to why the order no. 32 dated 24.03.2014 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Noakhali in the said suit rejecting an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reconsideration of prayer dated 09.03.2014 to accept court fees of taka 600/- as per section 17(1) of the Court Fees Act should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders be passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the rule, all further proceeding of the said Title Suit No. 44 of 2011 was stayed for a period of 4(four) months which was lastly extended on 24.11.2015 till disposal of the rule.

The precise facts so figured in the instant revisional application are:

The present petitioner as plaintiff initially filed the aforesaid suit for declaring that, the deed of heba bearing nos. 2745 and 2746 given by the executants, the defendant nos. 2-3 in favour of the defendant no. 1 is illegal, inoperative, collusive and not binding upon the said plaintiff. When the suit was at the stage of argument hearing, the defendant no. 1 disclosed that, he by way of another deed of heba bearing no. 2450 dated 19.02.2012 transferred some portion of the land in favour of the defendant nos. 2 and 3. Having learned about the said transfer of the suit property, the plaintiff then on 09.03.2014 filed an application under order VI, rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding a prayer by declaring that very deed dated 29.02.2012 is inoperative and also not binding upon the plaintiff. The said application was taken up for hearing by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st court, Noakhali and vide

order dated 09.03.2014 allowed the same with a cost of taka 500/- and asked the Sherestadar to give report with regard to depositing court fee. On that date, the plaintiff’s witness no. 1 (P.W-1) was also recalled and took deposition of the said P.W-1 that is, plaintiff, Broj Lal Pal. However, on that date, the Sherestadar gave report to the effect that, the plaintiff has to pay advolarum court fee amounting to taka 45,100/- and then the court directed the plaintiff to pay the said amount on 24.03.2014. On the subsequent date that is, on 24.03.2014 which was earlier fixed for depositing advolarum court fee on the back of allowing the application for amendment as well as the suit was also set for argument hearing and to file additional written statement by the defendant nos. 1-3. However, the plaintiff filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reconsidering the order passed by the learned Judge of the trial court dated 09.03.2014 for depositing advolarum court fee and prayed for allowing the plaintiff to deposit court fee at taka 600/-. But the learned Judge of the trial court rejected the said application fixing on 30.03.2014 for depositing taka 45,100/- though he admitted the additional written statement so filed by the defendant nos. 1-3.

It is at that stage, the plaintiff came before this court and obtained the instan