Friday, April 28, 2017 | ePaper

A Judge can recall an unsigned order only under notification to the parties

  • Print
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.

More News For this Category

Contract to be executed within 6 months

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Quazi Reza-ul     Hoque JJN Deb Choudhury JAbdul Khaleque..............Appellant vs Government of Bangladesh represented by Deputy Commissioner and anothers ................. RespondentsJudgment June 5th, 2016

Title and partition suit of undivided jote should go together

Appellate Division (Civil)  :Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain JHasan Foez Siddique JMirza Hussain Haider JJahangir Alam (Md) and others ... Appellants vsSabdir Ahmed and others...............RespondentsJudgmentDecember 7th, 2016Specific

Market value on date of acquisition be the basis of compensation of land

(From previous issue) :14. So he submitted that the learned Additional District Judge without considering the material facts, the evidence and the documents produced by the parties arbitrarily passed

Allowing witness to correct his deposition shall make cross-examination a mockery

Appellate Division :(Civil) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JNazmun Ara Sultana JMd Imman Ali JMd Nizamul Huq J Judgment July 28th, 2016 Sharifullah (Md) and anothers .... Petitioner vsMd Tafazzal

Market value on date of acquisition be the basis of compensation of land

High Court Division (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Farid Ahmed J Md JahangirHossain JMozlema Khatun and others-Appellants  (In First Miscellaneous Appeal  No. 262 of 2001) vs Government of Bangladesh and another

Levy customs duty as per tariff value on the date of presentation of Bill of Entry

Appellate Division (Civil) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JNazmun Ara Sultana JMd Imman Ali JMd Nizamul Huq J    JudgmentMarch 1st, 2016Moshtaq (Md) and others     . ........ Appellants vsCollector of

Counting time for pre-emption starts from date of knowledge

Appellate Division (Civil) Nazmun Ara Sultana JSyed MahmudHossain JJudgmentApril 28th, 2014Abu Hanif Hawlader..........Petitioner vsMohammad Amanat Ullah Hawlader and others .. RespondentsState Acquisition & Tenancy Act (28 of 1951) Section 96

Employees in service enjoy right to preference for absorption

High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tariq-ul Hakim JMd Faruque JJudgmentJune 14th, 2016Shahidul Islam (Md) and Others-Petitioners vs Bangladesh, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Bangladesh and

The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree

Appellate Division  :(Civil) Surendra Kumar Sinha J     Nazmun Ara Sultana JSyed Mahmud Hossain JHasan Foez Siddique JSheikh Sekander Ali and others .......Petitioner vsAgrani Bank Limited and others ... ........

Land not shown in schedule cannot be sold in auction

High Court Division (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Md Abdul Hafiz J SM MoziburRahman JAminul Islam (Md).........Judgment-Debtor-Petitioner         vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation, Dhaka.......Decree-Holder-Opposite Party Judgment May 12th, 2015 Code