IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 242 of 2021

With

(Civil Rule No. 202 (FM) of 2021)

In the matter of:

Meejab Limited represented by its Managing Director

⸺Plaintiff-Appellant

-Versus-

AA Knitspin Limited represented by its Managing Director and others

⸺Defendants-Respondents

Mr. Md. Imam Hossain, with

Mr. Mirza Al Mahmood, Advocates

... For the Plaintiff-Appellant

Mr. J. K. Paul, Advocate

... For Defendant No.2-Respondent No.2

Mr. Sovan Mahmud, Advocate

...For the Respondent No.3

Mr. A. Al Masud Begh, Advocate

... For the Defendant-Respondent Nos. 10 and 11

Mr. K.S. Salah Uddin Ahmed, Advocate

…For the Pro-forma Defendant- Respondent No. 16

Heard and Judgment on 16.07.2024

Present:

Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed

And

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

And

Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah, J:

The instant appeal and that of the rule have been referred to this bench by the Appellate Division by its order dated 16.05.2024 for disposal.

Since the point of law and facts so figured in the appeal and the Rule are intertwined, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this single judgment.

At the instance of the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 127 of 2021, this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, First Court, Dhaka, rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The salient facts leading to preferring this appeal are:

The appellant as plaintiff originally filed a suit being Title Suit No. 127 of 2021 in the First Court of Joint District Judge, Dhaka seeking reliefs, amongst others, for declaration that the plaintiff through the defendant nos. 10-11 is not bound to make payment to the defendant nos. 1-5 against the Back-to-Back Letters of Credit (briefly, BTB LC).

The case of the plaintiff narrated in the plaint of the suit is succinctly that, it is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of export of readymade garments to different countries. On the other hand, the defendant No. 7, namely, the UK Textile Group Limited is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom (UK) and defendant no. 6, Tex Valley International happens to be its local agent. The plaintiff used to maintain all business communication and correspondence with defendant no. 7 through defendant no. 6. In course of such business, a sale contract was executed between defendant no. 7, defendant no. 6 and the plaintiff on 02.06.2020. Thereafter, several sale contracts dated 16.06.2020, 22.06.2020, 09.09.2020, 21.09.2020 and 13.01.2020 were also executed between them for exporting readymade garments to defendant no. 7 worth USD 8,73,563.00 equivalent to Taka 7,42,52,855/-.

In order to manufacture the readymade garments, the plaintiff needed huge raw materials which is why the defendant no. 6, the local agent of defendant no. 7, then asked the plaintiff to purchase the raw materials only from defendant nos. 1-5 and to open required BTB LCs in their favour, although the plaintiff had no direct communication with them. The plaintiff then on good faith asked defendant no. 11 bank to open BTB LCs in favour of the defendant nos. 1-5 and accordingly the defendant no. 11 opened several BTB LCs in their favour for supply of different raw materials (goods). However, the defendant nos. 1-5 by adopting fraud and in connivance with the defendant nos. 6-7 without delivering the goods as per agreed terms and conditions so laid out in the LCs obtained acceptance from the plaintiff on the delivery chalans submitted by the defendant nos. 1-5 against the said BTB LCs. Meantime, defendant no. 11 made payment for an amount of USD 32,500.00 to defendant no. 3 in respect of BTB LC No. 1069200400286 dated 30.08.2020 ev