Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty

Civil Revision No.10067 of 1991

[Civil Revision No.05 of 1988 (Sylhet)]

with

CR No.10123(R) 1991

Eshad Ullah Haji Talukdar being dead his heirs:

1(Ka) Ruhitar Rahman Talukar and 5 others ......petitioners

-Versus-

Satish Chandra Roy Chowdhury and others ......opposite parties

Mr. Chanchal Kumar Biswas, Advocate

...... for the petitioners

Ms. Rahima Khatun, Deputy Attorney General ...... for opposite party 6

Judgment on 14.03.2024

Since the Rule has arisen out of the aforesaid civil revision and the parties thereto are same, both are heard together and disposed of by this judgment.

At the instance of the plaintiffs this Rule was issued calling upon opposite party 6 to show cause as to why the judgment and decree of the then Subordinate Judge, Habiganj passed on 13.04.1987 in Title Appeal No.14 of 1984 dismissing the appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the then Munsif-in-charge, Court No.2, Habiganj passed on 29.11.1983 in Title Suit No.299 of 1981 dismissing