HIGH COURT PERMISSION EXAM. CIVIL DRAFTING – 04. (Revision)

হাইকোর্ট পারমিশন লিখিত পরীক্ষা প্রস্তুতি

Civil-Question No-04 (Civil Part):

‘A’ instituted a suit against ‘B’ in the Court of Assistant Judge, Sylhet for a decree of perpetual injunction simpliciter with reference to certain property. Anyway, ‘B’ filed an application for local investigation of the suit-property and that was allowed by the Assistant Judge. ‘A’ being aggrieved by the aforesaid order moved the District Judge of Sylhet who also affirmed the order of the Assistant Judge. Advise ‘Al as to the next course of action and prepare a brief as per provisions of the relevant law in this regard. (25th June 2010, 15th July 2011, 15th March 2013, 9th January, 2016, 2017).

(প্রশ্নটি বাংলায় (দেওয়ানী)ঃ ‘ক’ সিলেটের ১ম সহকারী জজ আদালতে খি’ এর বিরুদ্ধে কিছু সুনির্দিষ্ট সম্পত্তির ব্যাপারে চিরস্থায়ী নিষেধাজ্ঞার ডিক্রী জারীর প্রার্থনায় একটি মামলা দায়ের করেন। খ’ নালিশা সম্পত্তির স্থানীয় তদন্তের জন্য একটি দরখাস্ত দায়ের করেন এবং বিজ্ঞ সহকারী জজ উহা মঞ্জুর করেন। ‘ক’ উপরোক্ত আদেশ দ্বারা সংক্ষুব্ধ, অসন্তুষ্ট হইয়া সিলেটের জেলা জজ আদালতে আবেদন করেন যিনি বিজ্ঞ সহকারী জজের আদেশ বহাল রাখেন। ‘ক’ কে তাহার গ্রহনীয় পদক্ষেপ সম্পর্কে পরামর্শ নাও এবং এই প্রসঙ্গে সংশ্লিষ্ট আইন মোতাবেক একটি ব্রীফ প্রস্তুত করুন (২৫শে জুন ২০১০, ১৫ই জুলাই ২০১১, ১৫ই মার্চ ২০১৩, ৯ই জানুয়ারী ২০১৬, ২০১৭)।

—————————

Answer to the Question No. 04 (Civil)

DISTRICT: SYLHET,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CIVIL REVISION NO.         OF 2022

APPLICATION VALUED AT TK. 3,00,00,000/-

SUIT VALUED AT TK. 3,00,00,000/-

TO-

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his companion Hon’ble Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition on behalf of the petitioner most respectfully-

SHEWETH:

1. That ‘A’ the petitioner in the instant case is the lawful owner and possessor of the suit property which he got from his father along with other properties by way of inheritance on his death.

2. That ‘B’, the opposite party claims that he has purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed being sale deed No. 88443322 dated 05.05.2015 and since then he is in possession of the suit property.

3. That the petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 123 of 2018 in the Court of Assistant Judge, 1st Court, Sylhet for perpetual inj unction/permanent injunction against the defendant-opposite party.

4. That the defendant opposite party appeared before the trial Court and contested the suit by filing written statements denying the all material averments made in the plaint.

5. That the defendant opposite party has been claiming the suit property, by way of purchase from a co-sharer on the basis of a sale deed which has not been properly registered.

6. That the property has not yet been partitioned amongst the co- sharers by metes and bounds.

7. That due to unlawful claim of the defendant-opposite party over the case property a cloud has been cast upon the title of the petitioner’s case property.

8. That in order to remove the cloud, the petitioner as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 123 of 2018 in the 1st court of Assistant Judge, Sylhet for declaration of title over the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint.

9. that the dependent opposite party on 02.02.2018 filed an application for local investigation and the plaintiff petitioner contested the same by filing an written objection denying the material averments made in the plaint.

10. That during trial of the suit the defendant ‘B’ filed an application for local investigation which was allowed by the learned court by its order dated 03.03.2018.

11. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 04.04.2020 passed by the District Judge, Dhaka in Civil Revision No. 323 of 2020, the plaintiff- petitioner begs to move this application under Section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the following amongst other-

GROUNDS

1. For that the learned District Judge, Sylhet committed error of law resulting to an error in decision in disallowing the appeal affirming the judgment and order of the trial court which occasioned failure of justice.
2. For that the decision of the learned District Judge as well as the Assistant Judge committed an error of law resulting an error in decision in allowing the application for local investigation.
3.  For that the decision of the learned District Judge as well as the Assistant Judge are based on no cogent reason or on any sound principle of law and as such the same are liable to be set aside.
4. For that both the learned courts below committed an error of law in misconceiving and misconstruing the actual facts and circumstances of the case resulting to an error in decision occasioning failure of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray,

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mr. ‘A’, Son of Md. Shaiful Islam and Most. Amena Begum, of village/ of 66/6 Zindabazar, Police Station- Sylhet Sadar, District- Sylhet, aged about 45 years, by faith -Muslim, by occupation- Business, by Nationality Bangladeshi, National ID No. 555666777888, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:-

1. That I am the petitioner and tadbirkar in this case and as such I am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case and competent to swear this Affidavit.

2. That the statements of facts made in this application are true to my knowledge and matters of record, which I verily believe to be true and the rests are submissions before this Hon’ble Court.

COMMISSIONER OF AFFIDAVIT SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION, DHAKA

• Facebook
• YouTube
• WordPress