Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque

Civil Revision No. 4365 of 2023

Samuda Real Estate Limited, represented by its authorized attorney Md. Sobuj, son of Abdul Mottaleb and Fokhrunnessa of Tk Bhabon, 10th Floor, 13, Kawran Bazar, Tejgaon, Dhaka.

... Petitioner -Versus-

Sujauddaula and others

...Opposite-parties Mr. Ahmed Nowshed Jamil with

Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Habib, Advocates

...For the petitioner Mr. Mohammad Nurul Huda Ansary with Mr. Ehsanul Hoque, Advocate

...For the opposite-party Nos. 2-8.

Heard and Judgment on 11th June, 2024.

In this application under Section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, by granting leave to revision to the petitioner, Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhaka in Civil Revision No. 153 of 2023 disallowing the same and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 07.05.2023 passed by the learned Joint District Judge (Arbitration Court), Dhaka in Title Suit No. 266 of 2017 rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Shorn of unnecessary details, fact of the case lies in a very narrow compus. The opposite parties, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 984 of 2011 in the Court of First Joint District Judge, Dhaka subsequently, renumbered as, Title Suit No. 266 of 2017 on transfer to the Court of Joint District Judge, Arbitration Court, Dhaka against the present petitioner, as defendant, praying for decree of declaration in the following terms;

“(L) e¡¢mn£ ag¢pm h¢ZÑa pÇf¢š−a h¡c£N−Zl üaÅ l−u−R j−jÑ h¡c£NZ−L ag¢pm h¢ZÑa pÇf¢šl 1Ú ®o¡m A¡e¡l j¡¢mL ®O¡oZ¡ L¢lu¡ ¢hh¡c£l ¢hl¦−Ü h¡c£N−Zl f−r HL ®O¡oZ¡j§mL l¡u J ¢Xœ²£ fÐQ¡l L¢l−a;

(M) e¡¢mn£ af¢pm h¢ZÑa pÇf¢š−a ¢hh¡c£l Shl cMm−L A¯hd J ®hA¡Ce£ ®O¡oZ¡ L¢lu¡ ¢hh¡c£−L e¡¢mn£ ag¢pm h¢ZÑa pÇf¢š ®b−L E−µRc L¢lu¡ A¡c¡ma ®k¡−N h¡c£Ne−L ag¢p−m h¢ZÑa pÇf¢šl cMm h¤T¡Cu¡ ¢c−a avj−jÑ HL l¡u J ¢Xœ²£ ¢c−a;”

The petitioner, as defendant No. 3, appeared in suit and filed written statement. After long time in the year 2017, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint. Among other dates hearing of the application was fixed on 07.05.2023. On the date fixed the petitioner, as defendant, filed an application praying for adjournment. The trial court after hearing rejected the same and also rejected the application for rejection of plaint. Against the order of the trial court dated 07.05.2023, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 153 of 2023. The revisional court fixed the matter on 24.07.2023 for hearing admissibility of the revision and after hearing the parties the revisional court rejected the revision by its judgment and order dated 24.06.2023. At this juncture, the present petitioner moved this Court by filing this application under Section 115(4) of the Code seeking leave to revision and obtained the present Rule and order of stay.

Mr. Ahmed Nowshed Jamil with Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Habib, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner submits that when an application for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant on the ground of barred by law, the court giving priority ought to have heard the application and disposed of the same before proceeding with the suit. He candidly submits that the application was filed on 08.03.2022, but on several dates the defendant took adjournments and finally fixed for hearing on 07.05.2023. On the date fixed the defendant prayed for an adjournment which was rejected by the trial court and the application for rejection of plaint which was also rejected without giving opportunity to the defendant to get the application heard and disposed of on merit. The revisional court also without going through the fact and law in this regard summarily rejected the revision, thus, committed an error of