Appellate Division :
(Civil)
Abdul Wahhab Miah J
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Md Imman Ali J
Md Nizamul Huq J
Judgment
March 31st, 2016
Moulavi Abdul Wahab
………..Petitioner
Nur Ahmed and others…………….Respondents
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Section 115(1)
How a Judge after recalling the order making a matter out of list hear the same on that the very date and dispose the same, in the absence of the petitioner. The High Court Division Rules permits a particular Judge to recall the unsigned order, but that must be done with notice to the parties.. …. (2 & 3)
AJ Mohammad Ali, Senior Advocate instructed by Md Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Omar Faruque, Advocate instructed by Madhu Malati Chowdhury Barua, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent Nos. 1(ka) & 1 (gha).
None Represented -Respondent Nos. 1 (Kha) & 2-18.
Judgment
Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J : This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated the 9th day of March, 2011 passed by a learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 3614 of 2004 discharging the Rule.
2. In this case we don’t feel the necessity to state the facts of the case inasmuch as Mr AJ Mohammad Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner at the very outset, has drawn our attention to the orders of the concerned Bench which disposed the Rule. From the orders passed in the revision incorporated at page 95 of the paper book, it appears that the concerned Bench made the civil revision out of list by its order dated 6-3-2011, then on 9-3-2011 recalled the unsigned order made on 6-3-2011 and then on that very date delivered the impugned judgment and order discharging the Rule in the absence of the petitioner.
We brought the records of the civil revision from the High Court Division and on perusal of the order sheets, we found the facts as stated at page 95 correct.
It struck our conscience how a learned Judge after recalling the order making a matter out of list hear the same on that the very date and dispose the same, in the absence of the petitioner.
3. We deprecate this kind of exercise of power by the High Court Division. We would like to observe that the High Court Division Rules permits a particular Judge to recall the unsigned order, but that must be done with notice to the parties.
4. In view of the above, we find no other alternative but to send the revision back to the High Court Division for hearing afresh and for disposal of the same in accordance with law on the evidence on record.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the following terms:
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside.
The revision is sent back to the High Court Division for hearing afresh and for disposal in accordance with law on the evidence on record. Since, the revision is of the year 2004, we feel that the same should be disposed of expeditiously.
If so advised, the parties may mention the revision before the competent Bench for early hearing and if mentioned, the concerned Bench shall hear the same on priority basis.
(Civil)
Abdul Wahhab Miah J
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Md Imman Ali J
Md Nizamul Huq J
Judgment
March 31st, 2016
Moulavi Abdul Wahab
………..Petitioner
Nur Ahmed and others…………….Respondents
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Section 115(1)
How a Judge after recalling the order making a matter out of list hear the same on that the very date and dispose the same, in the absence of the petitioner. The High Court Division Rules permits a particular Judge to recall the unsigned order, but that must be done with notice to the parties.. …. (2 & 3)
AJ Mohammad Ali, Senior Advocate instructed by Md Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Omar Faruque, Advocate instructed by Madhu Malati Chowdhury Barua, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent Nos. 1(ka) & 1 (gha).
None Represented -Respondent Nos. 1 (Kha) & 2-18.
Judgment
Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J : This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated the 9th day of March, 2011 passed by a learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 3614 of 2004 discharging the Rule.
2. In this case we don’t feel the necessity to state the facts of the case inasmuch as Mr AJ Mohammad Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner at the very outset, has drawn our attention to the orders of the concerned Bench which disposed the Rule. From the orders passed in the revision incorporated at page 95 of the paper book, it appears that the concerned Bench made the civil revision out of list by its order dated 6-3-2011, then on 9-3-2011 recalled the unsigned order made on 6-3-2011 and then on that very date delivered the impugned judgment and order discharging the Rule in the absence of the petitioner.
We brought the records of the civil revision from the High Court Division and on perusal of the order sheets, we found the facts as stated at page 95 correct.
It struck our conscience how a learned Judge after recalling the order making a matter out of list hear the same on that the very date and dispose the same, in the absence of the petitioner.
3. We deprecate this kind of exercise of power by the High Court Division. We would like to observe that the High Court Division Rules permits a particular Judge to recall the unsigned order, but that must be done with notice to the parties.
4. In view of the above, we find no other alternative but to send the revision back to the High Court Division for hearing afresh and for disposal of the same in accordance with law on the evidence on record.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the following terms:
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside.
The revision is sent back to the High Court Division for hearing afresh and for disposal in accordance with law on the evidence on record. Since, the revision is of the year 2004, we feel that the same should be disposed of expeditiously.
If so advised, the parties may mention the revision before the competent Bench for early hearing and if mentioned, the concerned Bench shall hear the same on priority basis.
