District: Chattogram

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Sardar Md. Rashed Jahangir

Civil Revision No. 3410 of 2024 In the matter of :

Md. Yeasin

… Petitioner

-Versus-

Ahmed Elahi and others

…Opposite-parties

Mr. Md. Mubarak Hossain, Advocate

…For the petitioner

Mr. Sankar Prasad Dey, Advocate with

Mr. Mohammad Ali, Advocate

…For the opposite-party No. 1

Heard on: 06.11.2024 and 13.11.2024 Judgment on: 14.11.2024

Rule was issued on leave calling upon the opposite-party No. 1 to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ninth Court, Chattogram in Civil Revision No. 316 of 2022 affirming the judgment and order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Fatikchari, Chattogram in Other Class Suit No.96 of 2021 rejecting the application filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 6-8 under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

The present opposite party No. 1 as plaintiff filed Other Class Suit No. 96 of 2021 for declaration that the plaintiff is the legal Mutwalli of Langta Fakir Dargah Jame Masjid Waqf Estate and for further declaration that the letter bearing Memo No. 16.02.0000.033.31.000.04/477/ (3) dated 25.10.2020 sent by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 asking for a proposal to constitute a committee regarding the Waqf Estate in question is illegal, void, collusive, inoperative and also for a declaration that the receiving of subscription by the office of the defendant No.1 from defendant No. 6 in respect of the Waqf Estate in question is illegal, void, collusive, inoperative.

Defendant Nos. 6-8 entered appearance and thereafter filed an application on 13.10.2021 under Order VII, rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint contending, inter-alia that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit, since the suit is barred under the provision of section 32 of the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962.

The plaintiff filed written objection against the application filed under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter-alia that under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Civil Court has the authority to try all suits of civil nature relating to enforcement of civil right and obligation. It was further contended that in filing the suit no provision of the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962 has been violated. The plaintiff has been appointed as mutawalli and he has certain rights stipulated under the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962 as well as under the laws of the country. He has a legal status and characteristic under the law and thus, possesses the right to sue for enforcement of his legal right and as such the application filed under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the defendant Nos. 6-8 is liable to be rejected.

Learned Senior Assistant Judge, Fatikchari, Chattogram after hearing the parties by his order dated 22.06.2022 rejected the application, against which the heirs of defendant No. 6 filed Civil Revision No. 316 of 2022 before the District Judge, Chattogram. On transfer the said revision was heard by the Additional District Judge, Ninth Court, Chattogram and by his judgment and order dated 18.04.2024 learned Additional District Judge rejected the revision affirming the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Fatikchari, Chattogram in Other Class Suit No. 96 of 2021.

On being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 18.04.2024, one of the heirs of deceased- defendant No. 6 filed this revision