IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed

Civil Revision No. 3838 of 2018

Md. Mahbub Alam

........ Petitioner -Versus-

Rehana Begum and others

.... Opposite parties

Mr. A.M. Mahbub Uddin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saqeb Mahbub, Advocate

........ For petitioner Mr. Mohammad Imam Hasan, with

Mr. Md. Shahinul Islam, Advocates

.... For opposite party Nos. 1-7

Heard on: 27.08.2024 Judgment on: 03.11.2024

The instant civil revision filed under Section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) arises out of judgment and order No. 2 dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Noakhali in Civil Revision No. 48 of 2018 rejecting the revision and affirming the judgment and order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Chatkhil, Noakhali in Title Suit No. 76 of 2011 allowing the plaintiff’s application for amendment of the plaint. This Court on 26.11.2018 granted leave and issued a Rule.

The defendant is the petitioner before this Court. The present

opposite parties as plaintiff filed the title suit for pre-emption of the

suit land under the Mohammedan Law. The defendant-petitioner filed

written statement in the suit. PW1 was partly examined on

13.08.2018. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order

VI rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC on 30.08.2018 which

was allowed by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court

below.

While rejecting the revision, the revisional Court below

observed, “¢hQ¡¢lL A¡c¡ma Hl ®cw- 76/2011 j¡jm¡l Bl¢S, 30/08/18 ¢MËx a¡¢lM c¡¢Mm£ BlS£ pw­n¡d­el clM¡Øa Hhw 30/08/2018 ¢MËx a¡¢l­Ml a¢LÑa B­c­nl S¡­hc¡ eLm c¡¢Mm Ll¡ q­u­Rz M¢lŸ¡l ¢hh¡c£/ f¡Ëb£Ña c¡¢h Bl¢S pw­n¡d­el clM¡Øa

j”¤­ll j¡dÉ­j j¡jm¡l cause of action f¢lhaeÑ q­u­Rz L¡­SC Eš² B­cn

BCepwNa qu e¡Cz j§m j¡jm¡l Bl¢Sl S¡­hc¡ eLm fkÑ¡­m¡Qe¡u ®cM¡ k¡u ®k, 24/12/2009 ¢MËx a¡¢l­Ml 5866ew p¡g Lhm¡l ¢hl²­Ü j¤p¢mj BC­el ¢hd¡e Ae¤k¡u£ ANH˲u j¡jm¡¢V c¡­ul Ll¡ q­u­Rz Eš² Bl¢S­a a¢LÑa c¢mm pÇf­LÑ 18/05/2011

a¡¢l­M AhNa q­u­R j­jÑ E­õM Ll¡ q­u­Rz Bl¢Sl 5ew fÉ¡l¡u Eš² a¡¢l­M AhN¢al ¢hou¢V E­õM Ll¡ q­u­Rz 4ew fÉ¡l¡l ®no m¡C­e a¢LÑa pw­n¡de£ Be¡ BhnÉL ¢Rm e¡z ¢L¿º Eš² pw­n¡de£l ®fË¢r­a j¡jm¡c la use of action f¢lhaÑe q­u­R hm¡ k¡u e¡z

L¡­SC HC ¢p¢i m ¢l¢i n¡e j¡jm¡¢V pl¡p¢l AN¡ËqÉ­k¡NÉz”

On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the

proposed amendment relates to serial number of a registered deed

dated 23.09.1941 and date of a registered deed being No. 5866 and

date of obtaining the certified copy of the sale deed in question which are mere clerical in nature. It also appears that the proposed amendment in respect of the schedule of land given in the plaint does not change the nature and character of the suit land and as such, the proposed amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit, rather those are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. This being the position, this Court does not find any illegally in the judgment and order passed by the revisional Court below. The instant revision does not involve any issue on an error of an important question of law resulting in erroneous decision occasioning failure of justice. Hence, the Rule fails.

In the result, the Rule is discharged.

Mazhar, BO