IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CIVIL REVISION NO. 1313 OF 2024

In the matter of:

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

Civil Procedure, 1908.

AND

In the matter of:

Robi Axiata Limited of Robi Corporated Office, The Forum, 187, 188/B Bir Uttam Mir Shawkat Sarak, Tejgaon Dhaka-1208, Bangladesh represented by its CEO and Managing Director.

.... Petitioner -Versus-

Mahtab Uddin Ahmed, son of late Selahuddin Ahmed of Flat-E5, Sharanee Apartments, House-78, Road-18, Block-A, Banani, Dhaka-1213, Bangladesh and others.

....Opposite-parties

Mr. Mamun Chowdhury with Mr. Suhan Khan, Advocates

... For the petitioner Mr. Ashfaqur Rahman, Advocate

...For the opposite-party no. 1 Heard and Judgment on 24.04.2024.

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

And

Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah, J:

At the instance of the defendant no. 1 in Title Suit No. 568 of 2022, this rule was issued calling upon the opposite-party no. 1 to show cause as to why the order dated 12.11.2023 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka in the suit framing issues upon accepting all the suggested issues of the plaintiff without considering the plaint and written statement and order dated 10.01.2024 passed in the suit, so far it relates to keeping petitioner’s application for framing of additional issues on the record should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of the instant rule are:

The present opposite-party no. 1 as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit seeking following reliefs:

“a. Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 declaring that the departmental proceedings initiated by the defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff vide the show cause notice dated 07.10.2021 as well as the purported dismissal of the plaintiff from his service as the MD and CEO of Robi with effect from 31.10.2021 vide the impugned notice dated 22.05.2022 have been done and issued illegally, without lawful authority, are of no legal effect and the same are not binding upon the plaintiff; and

2. Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to immediately realize his due service and other benefits as well as damages from the defendant no. 1 as mentioned in schedule no. 3 below to the tune of BDT. 227,02,44,502/- (Taka two hundred twenty-seven crore two lac forty-four thousand five hundred and two) only;

3. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 to pay BDT. 227,02,44,502/- (Taka two hundred twenty-seven crore two lac forty-four thousand five hundred and two) as described in schedule no. 3 to this plaint or the decreetal amount within a stipulated time as to this court may seem fit and proper and, in default, to realize the said decreetal amount through the court; and
4. Award interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount from 31.10.2021 till realization of the same.
5. Decree for costs.
6. Award such other or further relief or reliefs as Your Honour may find the plaintiff is entitled to.”

The present petitioner who is the defendant no. 1 entered appearance and filed written statement for contesting the suit and accordingly, a step was taken under section 89A of the Code of Civil Procedure for mediation of the dispute among the parties. Since the mediation has not been accomplished, the learned Judge of the trial court vide order dated 27.09.2023 fixed the matter for framing issues fixing it on 12.11.2023 and accordingly, the plaintiff proposed as many as 9 different issues and the learned Judge of the trial court vide order dated 12.11.2023 framed those issues fixing 10.01.2024 for taking step under section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On that very date, dated 10.01.2024, the defendant-petitioner filed an application proposing as man