High Court Division :
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
Sheikh Abdul
Awal J
Jabunnesa Akter……….
……………. Plaintiff-Petitioner
vs
Bangladesh Bank and another……. Defendant-Opposite Parties*
Judgment
May 27th, 2015.
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Order I, rule 10(2)
The proposition of law is by now well settled that a person is entitled to be added as a party in a suit even he be a stranger, if he has direct interest, legal or equitable in the dispute. .. .(12)
Zainul Abedin with Md Nurul Huda Ansary, Advocates-For the Petitioner.
Shamim Khaled Ahmad, Advocate-For the Opposite Party No.1.
Judgment
This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why the impugned Judgment and order dated 25-5-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Chittagong in Civil Revision No. 181 of 2009 allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 21-5-2009 pass by the learned Assistant Judge, 5th Court, Sadar, Chittagong in Other Suit No. 148″ of 2009 rejecting the application for addition of party should not be set-aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the Rule are that the petitioner herein as plaintiff brought the aforesaid Other Suit No. 148 of 2009 before the Senior Assistant Judge, 5th Court, Sadar, Chittagong impleading the opposite party No.2, Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Rev.), Chittagong as sole defendant for permanent injunction in the suit land as described in schedule of the plaint and ultimately, while the suit was in progress the present opposite party No.1, Bangladesh Bank as applicant filed an application for addition of party on the ground that the schedule land of the plaint includes the property of opposite party No. I, Bangladesh Bank and, as such, its presence is necessary in the suit for the purpose of proper and effective adjudication.
3. The trial Court after hearing, by its order No.7 dated 21-5-2009 rejected the application on the ground that the property in question claimed by the plaintiff is totally separated with the property of Bangladesh Bank and, as such, Bangladesh Bank being a 3rd party cannot be considered as a necessary party in a suit for permanent injunction.
4. On revision, Civil Revision No. 181 of 2009 the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Chittagong by the impugned judgment and order dated 25-5-2011 allowed the revision and setting-aside the order of the trial Court dated 215-2009 on the finding that in the facts and circumstance of the case Bangladesh Bank is a proper and necessary party in the suit for the purpose of proper and effective adjudication inasmuch as Bangladesh Bank has direct interest in the dispute.
5. Being aggrieved thereby the present plaintiff-petitioner moved this Court and wined the present Rule,
6. Mr Zainul Abedin, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the revisional Court below erred in law in rejecting the well founded order of the trial Court dated 21-5-2009 without considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the case made out by the plaintiff-petitioner that the suit property is not at all connected or related with the property of Bangladesh Bank and, as such, the same has occasioned a failure of justice. This is the only ground urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Zainul Abedin in support of his submission has relied on the decision reported in 42 DLR 72 and 17 BLD 49.
7. Mr Shamim Khaled Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. I, Bangladesh Bank, on the other hand, by filing counter affidavit opposes the Rule.
8. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides and perused the revision application along with connected papers including the impugned judgment and order dated 25-5-2011 as filed thereto. Now the question is, whether revisional Court below was justified in allowing the prayer for addition’ of party.
9. On scrutiny of the record, it appears that during pendency of the instant suit for permanent injunction the opposite party No. I as applicant filed an application for addition of party on the ground that the boundary of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint includes the property of opposite party No. I and earlier applicant-Bangladesh Bank as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 49 of 1995 on the allegation that 5 gonda land of Plot No. 2672 of RS Khatian No. 764 belonging to Bangladesh Bank is forcibly taken in possession by Jabunessa Akter, the defendant of that suit who is plaintiff of the instant other class suit No. 148 of 2009. The said Other Suit No. 49 of 1995 filed by the Bangladesh Bank is still pending for hearing.
10. The revision Court below has come to the conclusion that the order of the trial court below suffers from illegality resulting in the error in the decision occasioning a failure of justice. In coming to this’ conclusion the said Court has noticed that
“????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? ?? ??, ????????? ? ?????????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ???? ????????? ? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ??”?
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no flaw in the reasonings of the Revision Court below or any ground to assail the impugned judgment.
12. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the clear view that the opposite party No. 1 is a necessary party in whose presence the suit should be decided for proper and effective adjudication. The proposition of law is by now well settled that a person is entitled to be added as a party in a suit even he be a stranger, if he has direct interest, legal or equitable in the dispute.
Under the principles I find that the application under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC is attracted to the facts of the present case. The learned judge of the Revision Court below appears to have considered all the material aspects of the case and justly set-aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the prayer for addition of party, I find no reason to interfere therewith.
13. Here it may further be mentioned that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner has also no manner of application in the facts and circum stance of the case as the facts of the instant case are quite distinguishable from the facts of those cases.
14. In the result, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs. The order of stay granted earlier stands vacated. Since the case in question is a long pending case the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously in accordance with law.
Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Court concerned at once.
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
Sheikh Abdul
Awal J
Jabunnesa Akter……….
……………. Plaintiff-Petitioner
vs
Bangladesh Bank and another……. Defendant-Opposite Parties*
Judgment
May 27th, 2015.
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Order I, rule 10(2)
The proposition of law is by now well settled that a person is entitled to be added as a party in a suit even he be a stranger, if he has direct interest, legal or equitable in the dispute. .. .(12)
Zainul Abedin with Md Nurul Huda Ansary, Advocates-For the Petitioner.
Shamim Khaled Ahmad, Advocate-For the Opposite Party No.1.
Judgment
This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why the impugned Judgment and order dated 25-5-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Chittagong in Civil Revision No. 181 of 2009 allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 21-5-2009 pass by the learned Assistant Judge, 5th Court, Sadar, Chittagong in Other Suit No. 148″ of 2009 rejecting the application for addition of party should not be set-aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the Rule are that the petitioner herein as plaintiff brought the aforesaid Other Suit No. 148 of 2009 before the Senior Assistant Judge, 5th Court, Sadar, Chittagong impleading the opposite party No.2, Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Rev.), Chittagong as sole defendant for permanent injunction in the suit land as described in schedule of the plaint and ultimately, while the suit was in progress the present opposite party No.1, Bangladesh Bank as applicant filed an application for addition of party on the ground that the schedule land of the plaint includes the property of opposite party No. I, Bangladesh Bank and, as such, its presence is necessary in the suit for the purpose of proper and effective adjudication.
3. The trial Court after hearing, by its order No.7 dated 21-5-2009 rejected the application on the ground that the property in question claimed by the plaintiff is totally separated with the property of Bangladesh Bank and, as such, Bangladesh Bank being a 3rd party cannot be considered as a necessary party in a suit for permanent injunction.
4. On revision, Civil Revision No. 181 of 2009 the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Chittagong by the impugned judgment and order dated 25-5-2011 allowed the revision and setting-aside the order of the trial Court dated 215-2009 on the finding that in the facts and circumstance of the case Bangladesh Bank is a proper and necessary party in the suit for the purpose of proper and effective adjudication inasmuch as Bangladesh Bank has direct interest in the dispute.
5. Being aggrieved thereby the present plaintiff-petitioner moved this Court and wined the present Rule,
6. Mr Zainul Abedin, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the revisional Court below erred in law in rejecting the well founded order of the trial Court dated 21-5-2009 without considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the case made out by the plaintiff-petitioner that the suit property is not at all connected or related with the property of Bangladesh Bank and, as such, the same has occasioned a failure of justice. This is the only ground urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Zainul Abedin in support of his submission has relied on the decision reported in 42 DLR 72 and 17 BLD 49.
7. Mr Shamim Khaled Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. I, Bangladesh Bank, on the other hand, by filing counter affidavit opposes the Rule.
8. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides and perused the revision application along with connected papers including the impugned judgment and order dated 25-5-2011 as filed thereto. Now the question is, whether revisional Court below was justified in allowing the prayer for addition’ of party.
9. On scrutiny of the record, it appears that during pendency of the instant suit for permanent injunction the opposite party No. I as applicant filed an application for addition of party on the ground that the boundary of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint includes the property of opposite party No. I and earlier applicant-Bangladesh Bank as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 49 of 1995 on the allegation that 5 gonda land of Plot No. 2672 of RS Khatian No. 764 belonging to Bangladesh Bank is forcibly taken in possession by Jabunessa Akter, the defendant of that suit who is plaintiff of the instant other class suit No. 148 of 2009. The said Other Suit No. 49 of 1995 filed by the Bangladesh Bank is still pending for hearing.
10. The revision Court below has come to the conclusion that the order of the trial court below suffers from illegality resulting in the error in the decision occasioning a failure of justice. In coming to this’ conclusion the said Court has noticed that
“????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ????????? ?? ??, ????????? ? ?????????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ???? ????????? ? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ??”?
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no flaw in the reasonings of the Revision Court below or any ground to assail the impugned judgment.
12. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the clear view that the opposite party No. 1 is a necessary party in whose presence the suit should be decided for proper and effective adjudication. The proposition of law is by now well settled that a person is entitled to be added as a party in a suit even he be a stranger, if he has direct interest, legal or equitable in the dispute.
Under the principles I find that the application under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC is attracted to the facts of the present case. The learned judge of the Revision Court below appears to have considered all the material aspects of the case and justly set-aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the prayer for addition of party, I find no reason to interfere therewith.
13. Here it may further be mentioned that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner has also no manner of application in the facts and circum stance of the case as the facts of the instant case are quite distinguishable from the facts of those cases.
14. In the result, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs. The order of stay granted earlier stands vacated. Since the case in question is a long pending case the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously in accordance with law.
Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Court concerned at once.
