IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

And

Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Civil Revision No. 158 of 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code

of the Civil Procedure.

And

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shah Mohammad Enamul Hoque

... Defendant-Petitioner.

-Versus-

A. K. M. Murtaza Abedin Advocate

... Plaintiff-Opposite party. None appears.

...For the petitioner.

Mr. Kazi Shoayeb Hasan, Advocate

... For the Opposite Party.

Heard on 04.11.2024 Judgment on: 05.11.2024

Md. Bashir Ullah, J.

At the instance of defendant in Money Suit No. 06 of 2011, this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, First Court, Barishal in the aforesaid suit, rejecting an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

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

At the time of issuance of the Rule, all further proceedings of Money Suit No. 06 of 2011 was stayed for a period of 01(one) month which was subsequently extended from time to time and it was lastly extended on 25.12.2018 till disposal of the Rule.

The salient facts, relevant for the disposal of the Rule are:

The opposite party as the plaintiff instituted a Suit being Money Suit No. 06 of 2011 before the Joint District Judge, First Court, Barishal for a decree of compensation of Tk. 3,05,00,000/- stating inter alia that the plaintiff is a popular man and an elected councillor of Ward No. 2, Barishal City Corporation and an active member of Bangladesh Jaker Party, Barishal Branch while the defendant also is a resident of said Ward No. 2 and his son Arif is engaged in student politics for which political rivalry developed between them. The defendant lodged a First Information Report with Kotwali Police Station for the abduction of his son, Arifur Rahman against the plaintiff and others. Thus Kotwali Police Station Case No. 7 dated 02.06.2003 was started and police ultimately submitted the Charge Sheet and the said case was eventually sent to the Court of Sessions Judge, Barishal and the same was registered as Sessions Case No. 27 of 2006. The said Sessions case was subsequently tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Barishal and after conclusion of trial, the Court however acquitted the accused including the plaintiff on 21.09.2010, so it proves the defendant had filed a false case against the plaintiff only to harass him. Thus the plaintiff suffered loss mentally, economically and socially and the quantum of damages thus stood at Taka 3,05,00,000/-. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the above-mentioned money suit for compensation for malicious prosecution.

The defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint stating inter alia that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the allegations made in the plaint are fabricated. The plaintiff also filed written objection against the said application stating inter alia that the defendant filed the criminal case falsely against the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed the suit for compensation for malicious prosecution and thus the application filed for rejection of the plaint is not maintainable.

Upon hearing the parties, the learned Joint District Judge, First Court, Barishal rejected th