IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

CIVIL REVISION NO. 325 OF 2009

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

-And-

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mosammat Mohoki Begum and others

--- Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioners. -Versus-

Md. Lokman Ali and others

---Defendant-Opposite Parties.

Mr. Md. Shahadat Tanveer Amin, Advocate

--- For the Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioners. Mr. Md. Bazlul Kabir, Advocate

---For the Defendant-Opposite Parties.

Heard on: 29.03.2023, 03.05.2023, 17.05.2023 and 31.05.2023.

Judgment on: 31.05.2023.

At the instance of the present plaintiff-respondent- petitioners, Mosammat Mohoki Begum and others, this Rule was issued upon a revisional application filed under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1-9 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order complained of in the petition moved in this court should not be set aside.

The relevant facts for disposal of this Rule, inter-alia, are that the predecessor of the present petitioners as the plaintiffs filed the Title Suit No. 27 of 1992 against the predecessor of the defendant-opposite parties who are applicants of the Miscellaneous Case No. 45 of 1993 claiming that the Sumons of the Title Suit No. 27 of 1992 was duly served upon the defendant No. 1, namely, Mosammat Umezannesa on 28.07.1992 but since then the defendant No. 1 did not appear to contest the suit and the suit was decreed exparte on 16.11.1992 by the then Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), Court No. 1, Chapai Nawabganj. In the Miscellaneous Case No. 45 of 1993 the present opposite parties claimed that no notice was served upon them, as such, they could not appear in the court to contest the case, therefore, an exparte decree was passed against the present opposite parties. Challenging the said exparte decree passed by the then Subordinate Judge, Court No. 1, Chapai Nawabganj they filed the Miscellaneous Case No. 45 of 1993 under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), Court No. 1, Chapai Nawabganj in presence of the present plaintiff-petitioners who passed an order in the miscellaneous case by his judgment and order dated 24.09.2003 by rejecting the application filed under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Being aggrieved the present defendant-opposite parties preferred an appeal being the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 2003 in the court of the learned District Judge, Chapai Nawabganj which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Chapai Nawabganj who allowed the appeal and thereby reversed the judgment and order dated 25.09.2008. Challenging the said judgment and order passed in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 2003 this revisional application was filed and this Rule was issued thereupon.

Mr. Md. Shahadat Tanveer Amin, the learned Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners submits that the Summons of the Title Suit No. 27 of 1992 was duly served upon the defendant No. 1 Mosammat Umezannesa on 28.07.1992 at the presence of her sons, namely, Md. Lokman Ali (PW.1) and Md. Hashimuddin (PW.3) and the defendant No. 1 and her two sons gave their signatures upon the report of service of Summons.

The Rule has been opposed by the present defendant- opposite parties.

Mr. Md. Bazlul Kabir, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the defendant-opposite parties submits that the Title Suit No. 27 of 1992 was filed before the learned trial court by the present petitioners as the plaintiffs but during the hearing of that suit no notice was served upon the defendant-opposite parties, as such, the suit was decreed exparte without giving any opportunity to contest the suit by the defe