IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Badruzzaman.

And

Mr. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar

CIVIL REVISION No. 2670 OF 2019.

Bikalpa Bahumukhi Samabaya Samity Limited

represented by its Secretary.

...Petitioner. -Versus-

Md. Rafizuddin Bepari and others.

....Opposite parties. Mr. Abu Yeahia Dulal, Advocate

… For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Zahedul Bari, Advocate

… For opposite party Nos. 1-11

Heard on: 20.05.2024. Judgment on: 23.05.2024,

Md. Badruzzaman,J

Upon an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure this Rule was issued in the following terms:

“e¢b amh Ll¡ qELz

k¤NÈ ®Sm¡ SS, 2u Bc¡ma, Y¡L¡ La«ÑL ®cJu¡e£ ®j¡LŸj¡ ew 324/2016-H h¡c£l ®j¡LŸj¡l ®L¡e L¡lZ (Cause of action) e¡ b¡L¡u ¢hh¡c£-clM¡Ù¹L¡l£ La«ÑL ®cJu¡e£ L¡kÑ¢h¢dl B−cn 7 ¢euj 11 ®j¡a¡−hL c¡¢MmL«a clM¡Ù¹ ®c¡alg¡ p§−œ öe¡e£ A−¿¹ e¡- j”¤−ll ¢hNa Cw−lS£ 14.07.2019 a¡¢l−Ml B−cn ®Le lc, l¢qa Hhw h¡¢am Ll¡ q−h e¡

Hhw Aœ Bc¡ma La«ÑL p¢WL Hhw kb¡kb j−e Ll−m BlJ AeÉ¡eÉ h¡ A¢a¢lš² B−cn h¡ B−cnpj§q ®Le fÐc¡e Ll¡ q−h e¡ j−jÑ fТafrN−Zl fТa L¡lZ cnÑ¡−e¡f§hÑL l¦m ¢e¢n S¡l£ Ll¡ qmz’’

At the time of issuance of Rule this Court vide order dated 16.09.2019 stayed further proceedings of Title Suit No. 324 of 2016 for a period of 06 (six) months which was, subsequently, extended time to time.

Facts relevant, for the purpose of disposal of this Rule, are that opposite party Nos. 1-11 as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 324 of 2016 on 08.05.2016 against the petitioner and others in 2nd Court of Joint District Judge, Dhaka praying for a decree of declaration that S.A, R.S and City Jarip Khatians as described in the schedule of the plaint were wrong by declaring title of the plaintiffs to the suit land and another decree of recovery of Khas possession of 5.1804 acre land as described in Ka schedule of the plaint.

The positive case of the plaintiffs is that 6.09 acre land including the suit land belonged to Adu Bepari but during S.A, R.S and City Jarip operation, the suit land was wrongly prepared and published in the name of the defendants and their predecessors. The plaintiffs are the successive heirs of said Adu Bepari and they did not transfer any land out of the suit land to anybody else. The plaintiffs after obtaining the relevant Khatians and deeds came to know about the wrong records and they informed the matter to the defendants on 10.01.2016 who denied the claim of the plaintiffs and as such, the suit.

Defendant No. 2 is a Samabaya Samity who filed written statement on 16.07.2018 denying the material averments of the plaint and claiming their title to and possession in a part of the suit property by way of purchase from the successive heirs of C.S recorded tenants and further stated that they were owning and possessing .9975 acre land by purchase vide sale deed No. 2046 dated 06.04.1994 and since said land was within the Pallabi Housing Project, 2nd phase of defendant No. 1, both defendant No. 1 and 2 reached an amicable settlement and as per settlement defendant No. 1 developed said .9975 acre land against which defendant No. 1 allotted 6 plots measuring total .3305 acre land with common facilities to defendant No. 2 who thereafter, converted said 6 plots into one plot and after approval of plan from RAJUK already completed the construction up to the roof of 2nd floor.

Defendant No. 2 on 09.08.2018 filed an application under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action of the suit and as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs without filing written objection against the application of rejection of plaint filed an application on 06.02.2019 for amendment of the plaint proposing to introduce the fact as to how they acquired right, title and possession in the suit property from their predecessors as well as stating that