Monday, January 22, 2018 | ePaper

Depositing balance consideration in court is mandatory for filing suit

  • Print

Appellate Division
(Civil)

Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J
Md Imman Ali J
AHM Shamsuddin
Choudhury J

Abdul kalam (Md)
............................Petitioner
Md Mohiuddin and
others.............
................. Respondents*
Judgment
May 19th, 2015
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Order VII, rule 11
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section 21A(b)
The deposit of the balance consideration of the contract before filing -a suit for specific performance of the contract is a condition precedent and that having not been done in the case, that suit was barred under section 21A(b) of the Act. The plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code. . ..... (8)
Khair Ejaj Masud, Advocate instructed by Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Habibul Islam Bhuiyan. Senior Advocate instructed by Bivash Chandra Biswas, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No. 1.
Judgment
Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J : This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated the 19th day of May, 2010 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 5887 of 2007 discharging the Rule.
2. The petitioner as the plaintiff filed Other Suit No. II of 2006 in the Court of Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Kishoregonj for specific performance of the contract.
3. Respondent No. I got him added as defendant No.2 and filed an application therein under Order VII, rules II of the Code of Civil Procedure for, rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that the suit was barred under provision of section 17B of the Registration Act, 1908 and section 21A of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
4. The application was objected by the plaintiff by filing written objection. The learned Joint District Judge by his order dated 30-9-2007 rejected the application. Against the order of the learned Assistant Judge, the defendants filed Civil Revision No 5887 of 2007 before the High Court Division and obtained the Rule.
5. A Division Bench of the High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order made the rule absolute, set aside the order passed by the learned Joint District judge and rejected the plaint, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
6. Heard Khair Ejaj Masud, learned Advocate, for the petitioner and Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, learned Advocate, who entered caveat on behalf of respondent No. 1 perused the order of the learned Joint District Judge as well as the impugned judgment and order.
7. The High Court Division rejected the plaint relying on section 21A(b) of the Specific Relief Act, in short, the Act which has provided that no contract for sale of any immovable property can be specifically enforced unless the balance amount of consideration of the contract is deposited in the Court at the time of filing the suit for specific performance of the contract (emphasis supplied). The High Court Division also noticed that the suit was instituted on 2-4-2006 long after coming into force of the amended provision of section 21A(b) of the Act, and "the balance amount of consideration of the impugned contract for sate was not deposited in the Court at the time of filing of the suit rather it is during pendency of the suit and long after one year five months and 28 days , i.e. on 30-9-2007 the balance amount of Taka 2(two) lacs was deposited before the Court with its permission."
8. We have considered the provision of section 21 A(b) of the Act. The language of the section is so unambiguous that it does not require any interpretation to come to conclusion that in case or failure of depositing the balance amount at the time of filing the suit or specific performance of the contract, the suit cannot be maintained. Even then, from the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the High Court Division considered various decisions of this Court and of the Indian jurisdiction and came to the finding that the deposit of the balance consideration of the contract before filing a suit for specific performance of the contract is a condition precedent and that having not been done in the instant case, that suit was barred under the provision of section 2IA(b) of the Act. Therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We find no error with the view taken by the High Court Division in view of the language used in section 21 A(b) of the Act.
9. However, it appears that with the permission of the Court, the plaintiff deposited the balance consideration of Taka 2,00,000 of the contract. Therefore, we direct the trial Court to return the said amount to the plaintiff without any delay.
With the above direction, the petition is dismissed.

More News For this Category

In amicable act no single party can be stamped out

(From previous issue) :17. The remaining witnesses were Nasima's sister PW 2, another relation PW 3 and no such local Union Parishad Chairman, Member or leading villager was

Genuineness of official order should be established first

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Zinat Ara J KM Kamrul Kader J     Nurul Islam (Md) ..............Petitioner vs Anti-Corruption Commission represented by its Chairman Dhaka and others   

Only the 'drawer' is liable

High Court Division (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Farah Mahbub J Mahmudul Hoque JShahidul Alam @ S Alam and another. ..........Complainant-PetitionersvsDr Jahid Hossain Prodhan and another...............Opposite-PartiesJudgmentAugust 17th, 2017Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI

In amicable act no single party can be stamped out

High Court Division (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Md Emdadul Huq JAshish Ranjan Das JJudgmentMay 11th, 2016Najim Uddin (Md) ....................Convict-Accused- Appellant vsState ..............RespondentNari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Doman Ain (VIII of 2000) Section 9(1)

Limitation of High Court Jurisdiction

(From previous issue) :5. It is further stated that during the tenure of the Respondent No. 6 as Chief Engineer of LGED, numerous allegations of corruption, bribery and dishonest

Law allows the court to pass order in ‘summary manner'

High Court Division  :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Sheikh Abdul Awal JShahidul Karim JBASIC Bank Ltd     . Plaintiff-Appellant vs Sarwar Enterprise and others ......................Defendant-RespondentsJudgment June 7th, 2016 Artha Rin Adalat

Auction of mortgaged property be made first

(From previous issue) :8. The. only question that calls for consideration by us in this Writ Petition is whether· under the governing law and the decisions of the Appellate

Limitation of High Court Jurisdiction

High Court Division  :(Special Original JurisdictTariq-ul-Hakim JAKM Shahidul Huq JAbdus Shaheed (Md) and another ............    . Petitioner vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development

Establishing claim in suit for partition

Appellate Division (Civil) :Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JMd Imman Ali JKanchan Mallik and others................Appellantsvs Saleha Begum and others.............RespondentsJudgmentNovember 18, 2015Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) Order VII, Rule

Quantum of seized drugs must be determined in an acceptable method

(From previous issue) :27. On the other hand, in some cases, this can also act to the benefit of the accused person. Although a person may have been in