IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah And

[

Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Civil Revision No. 66 of 2013

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

And

In the matter of:

Subol Mukharjee

---Defendant-petitioner.

-Versus-

Dr. Arifur Rahman Notun and others

--- Plaintiffs-opposite parties.

Mr. Md. Aktaruzzaman, Advocate

--- For the petitioner.

Not represented --- For the opposite parties.

Heard on: 14.08.2024

Judgment on: 15.08.2024

Md. Bashir Ullah, J

At the instance of the defendant in Title Suit No. 14 of 2009, this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party nos. 1-4 to show cause as to why order No. 63 dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Joint District Judge, First Court, Barishal in the said suit allowing the application for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiffs directing defendant no. 1 to remove all structures from the suit land within 30 days, at his own cost which he has done after passing the order of status quo and to maintain

the position of the suit land as it was at the time of filing of the suit should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court stayed all further proceedings of Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2011 arising out of Title Suit No. 14 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Barishal for a period of 04(four) months, which was subsequently extended time to time and it was lastly extended on 09.11.2014 till disposal of the Rule.

Facts, relevant for the disposal of the Rule, are:

One Mujibur Rahman Talukdar the predecessor of the opposite party nos. 1-4 as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 14 of 2009 against the petitioner and others as defendants praying for partition of the suit land seeking the following reliefs:

(L) ‘L’ ag¢pm ¢hi¡SÉ i¨¢j−a h¡c£l c¡h£L«a Awn h¡hc fªbL R¡q¡−jl ¢Xœ²£

¢ch¡lz

13. ¢hi¡SÉ ¢h−l¡d£u i¥¢jl AhÙÛ¡e Ae¤p¡−l j§mÉj¡e ¢edÑ¡l−e kac¤l pñh ¢eS¡jm

hq¡m£−a h¾V−el Q§s¡¿¹ ¢Xœ²£ ¢ch¡lz

14. ®j¡LŸj¡ pjÉL hÉu ¢hh¡c£ fТaL§−m ¢Xœ²£ ¢ch¡lz
15. BCe J CL¥C¢V j−a h¡c£ Bl ®k ®k fТaL¡l f¡C−a f¡−l Eq¡l ¢Xœ²£ ¢ch¡lz

It is stated in the plaint that the suit land is joint property and for

the convenience of enjoying possession, the plaintiffs asked defendant

for partition of the suit land but it was refused. Under such a compelling situation, the plaintiffs instituted the above-mentioned suit for partition.

Then on 4.5.2010, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and dispossessing them and cutting the trees and changing the nature and character of the suit land and also from erecting houses in the suit land. The application was heard on the same date and the trial court issued show cause notice upon the defendant asking them as to why an order of injunction will not be granted within seven days when it passed an interim order to maintain status quo.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed Violation Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2011 under order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure against defendant no. 1 alleging that he cut some trees, erected wall, constructed dwelling house and dug hole on the suit land violating the order of status quo. In the said Miscellaneous Case the plaintiffs examined as many as 5 witnesses and adduced documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial Court upon perusal o