Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty

Civil Revision No. 3216 of 2010

Krion Chandra Nath and another

..... petitioners -Versus-

Fouzul Azim ..... opposite party No one appears for the petitioner

Mr. Maqbul Ahmed, Advocate

...... for the opposite party

Judgment on 03.03.2024

The leave was granted and rule was issued calling upon opposite party 1 to show as to whether the judgment and order of the District Judge, Chattogram passed on 11.03.2010 in Civil Revision No. 177 of 2009 allowing the revision reversing the judgment and order of the Assistant Judge (in charge), Lohagara, Satkania Chouki, Chattogram passed on 17.05.2009 in Other Class Suit No. 13 of 2008 rejecting the application for addition of party and granting order of status quo suffers from an error on important question of law resulting an erroneous decision occasioning failure of justice and/or such other or further order or orders passed to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuing the rule, the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the possession and position in the suit property till disposal of the leave. This Court further passed order that the proceeding of the suit shall continue as usual.

Facts relevant for disposal of the rule, in brief, are that the petitioners herein as plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of title in respect of the land described in the schedule to the plaint. The defendants 1 and 2 appeared in the suit and filed written statement to contest it. During pending of the aforesaid suit opposite party 1 herein as third party filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) for adding him as defendant in the suit. In the application he claimed that he purchased .21 acres of the suit land from defendants 1 and 2 by a registered kabala dated 16.03.2009. The above defendants did not inform him about pending of the suit in respect of sold property. The plaintiffs also filed an application praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance in the enjoyment of the suit land. The Assistant Judge took up both the applications for hearing and by its judgment and order passed on 17.05.2009 allowed the application of the plaintiffs for temporary injunction and directed the parties maintain status quo in respect of the suit land but rejected the application of the third party (opposite party 1 herein) filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for adding him as defendant. Being aggrieved by the third party petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 177 of 2009 before the District Judge, Chattogram. The District Judge after hearing allowed the revision on 11.03.2010 and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Judge. In this event, the plaintiffs approach this Court and leave was granted and rule was issued with an interim order to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land.

No one appears for the petitioners. Although the matter has appearing in the list with the names of learned Advocates of both the parties. This is a very old matter against order and as such it is taken up for disposal on merit hearing the learned Advocate for opposite party 1.

Mr. Maqbul Ahmed, learned Advocate for opposite party 1 opposes the rule and prays for its discharge. He submits that the District Judge on appreciation of fact and law allowed the revision. He committed no error of law resulting an erroneous decision for which it can be interfered with. He apprises this Court that the trial Court did not proceed with the suit and it is still pending for disposal.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for opposite party 1, gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below and documents appended with the application.

The petitioner brought the suit against defendants 1 and 2 for declaration of title in respect of the suit land as described in the schedule to the plaint. The opposite part