IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.912 OF 2002

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Chowmuhani Bazar Small Tradara Co-operative Society

.... Petitioner

-Versus-

Chowmuhani Pourashava

.... Opposite party

None appears

.... For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Moshihur Rahman, Assistant Attorney General

…. For the opposite party.

Heard and Judgment on 14.11.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2002 passed by the learned Joint District, 1st Court, Noakhali in Title Appeal No.70 of 2001 reversing those dated 21.06.2001 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Begumgonj, Noakhali in Title Suit No.70 of 2001 should not be set aside and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted above suit for a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining him to lease out the disputed premises until the petition of the plaintiff for perpetual lease of above property is disposed of by the Ministry of Land.

In above suit plaintiff filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from giving lease of the disputed property pursuant to the lease notice issued by the defendant till disposal of the Suit. The defendant Mayor of Chowmuhani Pourashava submitted a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint since the pliant is hit by Section 152 of the Pourashava Ordinance, 1977 for not issuing a notice upon the defendant before 30 days of filling of above suit.

The learned Senior Assistant Judge took up above two petitions for hearing on 21.06.2001 and on consideration of the submissions of the learned Advocates for respective parties and materials on record rejected the petition filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from leasing out the disputed premises till disposal of above suit.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and order of the trial Court the defendant preferred Other Appeal No.70 of 2001 to the District Judge, Noakhali which was heard by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court who allowed above appeal and set aside the impugned judgment order of the trial Court and rejected above plaint.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and order of the Court of Appeal below above respondent as petitioner moved to this Court and obtained this Rule.

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of this Rule although this matter appeared in the list for hearing on several dates.

Mr. Md. Moshihur Rahman, learned Assistant Attorney General for the opposite party submits that admittedly the disputed premises belonged to the defendant No.1 Chairman, Chowmuhani Pourashava and the plaintiff claims to have obtained temporary lease of the same from the defendant and the term of above lease had expired. The plaintiffs claimed that they have submitted a petition to the Ministry of Land for perpetual lease of the above premises. But since the plaintiffs did not get any lease of above property they had no locus standi to maintain a suit for permanent injunction or to get an order of injunction. On consideration of above materials on record the learned Joint District Judge rightly rejected the petition of the plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As far as rejection of the plaint is concerned admittedly the plaintiff d