IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

CIVIL REVISION NO. 1716 OF 2005.

In the matter of:

An application Under Section 115(1) of the Code of

Civil Procedure.

AND

IN THE MATER OF:

Md. Abdul Jabbar and others

....... Petitioners

-Versus-

Rafiquddin Sarker and others

...... Opposite Parties None appears

... For the petitioners. None appears

……For the opposite parties Heard and Judgment on 02.09.2024

Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah, J:

At the instance of the defendant in Other Class Suit No. 119 of 2003 and that of the appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 2004, this rule was issued calling upon the opposite-party nos. 1-4 to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 08.03.2005 passed by the

learned Joint District Judge, 1st court, Dinajpur in the said Miscellaneous Appeal dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 15.05.2004 passed by the learned senior Assistant Judge, in-charge, Sadar, Dinajpur, in Other Class Suit No. 119 of 2003, allowing an application for temporary injunction ex parte filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties restraining the defendants-petitioners from interfering in enjoying possession in the suit land should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the rule, this court also stayed the operation of the impugned order and parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession and position of the suit property initially for a period of 06(six) months which was subsequently extended from time to time.

The short facts leading to issuance of the instant rule are:

The present opposite-party nos. 1-4 as plaintiffs originally filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title in the suit property stating inter alia that, the suit property originally belonged to CS recorded tenant namely, Didar Saha who sold out the same on 26.02.1948 to one, Alhaj Siraj Uddin Sarker by registered deed and during enjoying title and possession over the suit land it was recorded in his name in SA khatian. Thereafter, Alhaj Siraj Uddin Sarker died leaving behind wife, defendant no. 5, 3(three) sons and 6 daughters that is, defendant nos. 2-4 and defendant nos. 5-7 respectively as his heirs. That the predecessor in- interest of the plaintiff’s howeer did not distribute the suit property among his successors and the property left by Alhaj Siraj Uddin Sarker was never partitioned by metes and bounds among his heirs which remained as ejmali. It has further been stated that, the plaintiff, Anowara Begum got the suit property through her husband by registered heba deed dated 03.01.1984 and since then she has been possessing the property and during enjoying possession she mutated her name in the khatian. It has further been alleged that, on 10.02.2003 the defendants- petitioners threatened to dispossess her from the suit land and hence the suit was filed. It is to be mentioned here that, after the demises of plaintiff, Anowara Begum the present opposite parties were substituted as her legal heirs. However after filing of the suit, the plaintiff on 04.11.2003 filed an application for injunction under Order 39 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff’s in the suit property. Though the defendants did not appear to contest the suit by filing written statement or that of the application filed for temporary injunction, yet it was taken up for hearing by the learned senior Assistant Judge, sadar, Dinajpur on 15.05.2004 and allowed the same ex parte restraining the defendants from entering into the suit property forcibly or to hinder peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit land holding that, the

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order pass