Present:

Mr. Justice A.K.M. Asaduzzaman

Civil Revision No. 1255 of 2024

Kazi Riazul Islam and others

………… Petitioners.

-Versus-

Atahar Ali Kazi and others

………….Opposite parties. Mr. Sikder Mahmdur Razi, Adv. with

Mr. Ashoke Kumar Paul, Advocate

.........For the petitioners.

Mrs. Anjuman Ara, Advocate

......... For the opposite parties.

Heard and judgment on 12th June, 2024. A.K.M.Asaduzzaman,J.

This rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the District Judge-in-charge, Pirojpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31 of 2023 reversing those dated 19.11.2023 passed by the Assistant Judge, Bhandaria, Pirojpur in Title Suit No. 172 of 2023 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of

possession and position of the suit property till hearing of the application for temporary injunction should not be set aside.

Petitioners as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 172 of 2023 before the Court of Assistant Judge, Bhandaria, Pirojpur against the petitioners and others for partition.

During pendency of the suit, on 01.10.2023 plaintiff petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction and the said application was heard on 19.10.2023 and on that date the Assistant Judge passed an order to maintain status-quo in respect of possession and position of the suit property till hearing of the application for temporary injunction.

Challenging the said order, defendant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31 of 2023 before the Court of District Judge, Pirojpur. By the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 the said appeal was allowed by the District Judge, Pirojpur.

Challenging the said order plaintiff petitioner obtained the

instant rule.

Mr. Sikder Mahmudur Razi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner drawing my attention to the judgment of the court below submits that trial court passed an innocent order by passing an order of status-quo till disposal of the report of the local inspection saying that plaintiff has got prima-facie arguable case but the appellate court upon misunderstanding the said order most illegally reversed the said judgment and set aside the order of the trial court granting status-quo. The impugned order is not sustainable in law, which is liable to be set aside. He finally prays that a direction may be given to the trial court to decide the application for injunction afresh and till disposal of the application the order of status-quo may be maintained.

Mrs. Anjuman Ara, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand drawing my attention to the report of the local investigation submits that appellate court being the last court of fact has rightly assessed that on local investigation, the Advocate Commissioner has found that defendants are in possession in the suit property and they already have two storied building in the suit premises, which is now being extended by way of further construction but due to the order of status-quo passed by the trial court, defendant is not making further construction thereon and thereby all those materials, purchased for making further construction is going to be damaged and he has suffered huge financial loss and injuries and as such the appellate court has rightly set aside the order of the trial court of granting status-quo. Since the impugned order contains no illegality, she finally prays that rule may be discharged.

Heard the learned advocate and perused the annexure placed by way of supplementary affidavit as well as the impugned order.

This is a suit for partition. Plaintiff claims the share in the property, which has been opposed by the defendant. In the said suit, plaintiffs filed for temporary injunction and prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further construction in the suit premises and the trial court passed an order of status- quo as and when local inspection application was filed by defendant and it was all