Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque

Civil Revision No. 2831 of 2023

Abidur Rahman Chowdhury and another

... Petitioners -Versus-

Mizanur Rahman Chowdhury and others

...Opposite-parties Mr. Bashir Ahmed, Advocate

...For the petitioners. Mr. Jahangir Ahmed Khan, Advocate

...For the opposite-party No. 1.

Heard and judgment on 4th July, 2024.

On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure this Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioners calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 04.04.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04 of 2023 rejecting the appeal summarily and affirming the judgment and order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Brahmanbaria in Title Suit No. 116 of 2018 vacating the order of status-quo should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

The petitioners, as plaintiff, filed Title Suit No. 116 of 2018 in the Court of Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Brahmanbaria against the opposite-parties, as defendant, for partition. In the suit the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction against the defendant No. 1.

The trial court after hearing the application issued notice to show cause upon the defendants fixing 01.12.2022 for filing written objection. The defendant No. 1 appeared in suit on 01.12.2022 and prayed for time to file written objection. Prayer was allowed. The plaintiffs by filing an application prayed for an ad-interim order of injunction. The trial court after hearing allowed the same and directed both the parties to maintain status-quo till filing of written objection by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 filed written objection on 16.02.2023. The trial court took the matter for hearing and heard the injunction matter in part and fixed on 30.04.2023 for further hearing. The plaintiffs filed an application praying for extension of order of status-quo. The trial court after hearing instead of extending the order of status-quo by the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 vacated the order of status-quo passed on 01.12.2022.

Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs, filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04 of 2023 before the learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria. The appeal was fixed for admission hearing on 04.04.2023. On the date fixed the appellate court summarily rejected the appeal observing that the matter of injunction already heard in part and next date is fixed for hearing on 30.04.2023, therefore, there is no necessity of extension of order of status-quo. At this juncture, the petitioners moved this Court by filing this revision and obtained the present Rule and order of status-quo.

Mr. Bashir Ahmed, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that this is a suit for partition. Considering urgency of the matter in dispute, the plaintiffs prayed for temporary injunction against the defendants not to change the nature and character of the suit property by making construction. The trial court rightly issued notice to show cause and after appearance of defendant No. 1, the trial court considering urgency of the matter passed an order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo till filing of the written objection by defendant No. 1. The trial court fixed the matter on 16.02.2023. On the date fixed defendant No. 1 filed written objection and the court also took the matter for hearing and heard in part. Since hearing of the matter could not be concluded on that date, the court fixed next date on 30.04.2023 which is ordinarily long, consequently, the plaintiffs prayed for extension of order of status-quo till that date, but the trial court instead of allowing the prayer most unfortunately vacated the order of status-quo passed on 01.12.2022 which has already expired on that date.

He submits that th