IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CIVIL REVISION NO. 439 OF 2021 Moktar Ahmed

…Petitioner

-Versus- Roshida Begum and others

…Opposite Parties Mr. Mohammad Rezaul Karim with

Mr. Md. Mizanul Haque, Advocates

…for the petitioner Mrs. Nashreen Siddiqua with

Mr. Md. Juwel Azad, Advocates

…for the opposite parties

Date of hearing: 12.10.2023, 15.10.2023, 16.10.2023 Date of Judgment: 18.10.2023

A.K.M. Rabiul Hassan, J:

This Rule is directed against the judgment and order dated

19.08.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Cox’s Bazar, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 44 of 2019 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Cox’s Bazar in Other Suit No. 432 of 2018 allowing the plaintiff respondents’ application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and granting temporary injunction restraining the payment of compensation money of the Award No. 103 of L.A. Case No. 4/2016- 2017 in connection with suit Schedule-A property.

At the time of issuance of the rule, this court was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Cox’s Bazar in Miscellaneous Appeal No.44 of 2019 for a period of 6(six) months from the date and thereafter,on 20.06.2022 the said order of stay was extended till disposal of the rule.

For disposal of this rule, the relevant facts may be briefly be stated as follows:

The present opposite parties as plaintiffs filed an Other Suit No.432 of 2018 before the learned Joint District Judge, 1stCourt, Cox’s Bazar impleading the present petitioner as defendant No. 2 along with others for declaration of title of the suit land as mentioned in schedule-A of the plaint and also for a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2021 (decree signed on 09.10.2012) passed by the Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Cox’s Bazar in Other Suit No. 106 of 2011 and the registered Deed of Gift No. 656 dated 23.03.1988 in the name of predecessor of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous, collusive as well as null and void. At the time of filing the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs-opposite parties filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for an order of temporary injunction against the defendant Nos.1-25to restrain them from withdrawingthe compensation money awarded in Award No. 103 of L.A. Case No. 4 of 2016-2017 in connection with

the suit schedule-A land. On 29.11.20218 the trial court issued show cause notice upon the defendants and further directed the parties to maintain the status quo in the meantime. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 appeared in the suit and filed a written objection against the application for temporary injunction denying the material averments made in the application. Subsequently, the trial court upon the hearing of the application as well as the written objection filed by the parties vide its judgment and order dated 09.10.2019 allowed the application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2, 17, 19 and 20 from withdrawing the compensation money awarded in Award No. 103 of LA Case No. 4 of 2016-2017 in connection with the suit schedule-A land. The trial court was also pleased to issue a show cause upon the Land Acquisition Officer of Cox’sbazar along with the defendant Nos.1 & 2 why legal action should not be taken against them for violating the Court’s order dated 29.11.2018 for maintaining the status quo. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of injunction, defendant No. 2 as an appellant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 44 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Cox’s Bazar. Upon hearing both sides, the appellate court was pleased to disallow the appeal vide its judgment and order dated 19.08.2020 and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of injunction dated 09.10.2019 passed