Monday, July 22, 2019 | ePaper

Every person is answerable for the truth of his statement

  • Print
Appellate Division (Civil)  :
Syed Mahmud Hossain   J }
 Hasan Foez Siddique     J  }
 Mirza Hussain Haider    J }
Secretary, Ministry
of Housing and Public Works,
Government of Bangladesh Dhaka
and others…………… Appellants
                VS
Hanif Brothers and another………
Respondents
Judgment  
May 17th, 2017

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102(2)

Neither in the Court of Settlement nor in the High Court Division the writ petitioner stated that earlier he filed settlement case which was dismissed on merit. He was totally silent about his earlier case and the observation made by the Court of Settlement inasmuch as it was his duty to bring it to the notice of the Court. Such silence is fraud upon the Court because it was his duty to brng the truth the notice of the Courts……………………………(9)
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102 (2)

A judgment obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and nonest in the eye of law. The writ petitioner, while obtaining the judgment of the High Court Division, suppressed the material document which amounted to fraud…………………………….(9)
Murad Reza,  Additional Attorney-General, instructed by Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record.
Mohammad Abdul Hai,  Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent.

Judgment
Hasan Foez Siddique J : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-4-2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 4309 of 2005 directing the writ respondents to exclude the property, in question, from the 'Ka' list of the abandoned properties and to restore possession of the same.
2. The short facts, for the disposal of this appeal, are that Plot No. CES (A)-49, Gulshan, Road No. 96, Gulshan Avenue, Gulshan Model Town, Dhaka (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property) was allotted to writ petitioner M/s Hanif Brothers by  the then Dhaka Improvement Trust by allotment letter No. DI/Gulshan/787 dated 1-9-1960 and accordingly, lease Deed No. 4439 dated 29-4-1964 was executed and registered. While the writ petitioner had been in possession of the property he was dispossessed by some miscreants after the war of liberation. Subsequently, the Government took over the control of the property as abandoned property and it was listed in the 'Ka' list of abandoned buildings published in the official Gazette on 13-9-1986. The writ petitioner on several occasions applied to the writ respondents for getting release and restoration of possession of the property in his favour but without any result. Ultimately, the writ petitioner files Case No. 300 of 1995 (Ka-25 Ghlshan, Dhaka) under section 7 (l) of the Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance, 1985 before the First Court of Settlement, Dhaka. The case was contested by the Government, i.e., the writ respondent No. 1. The First Court of Settlement allowed the case by its decision dated 30-11-1997 and ordered for exclusion of the property from the Ka list of Abandoned Buildings and to restore possession of the same to the writ petitioner. But the writ respondents did not comply with the said decision inasmuch as the writ petitioner on 7-7-1998, 16-5-1999, 27-2-2001, 17-7-2003 and 23-3-2005 made representations to exclude the property from the Ka list of Abandoned Buildings and to restore his possession. Thus, the respondent No. l, filing writ petition, obtained Rule.
3. The High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order made the said Rule absolute. Then the appellants have preferred this appeal getting leave.
4. Leave was granted to consider the submissions that the respondent Abdur Rouf earlier filed Settlement case No. 45 of 1990 before the First Court of Settlement, Dhaka for exclusion of the disputed property from 'Ka' list of the abandoned properties and the said settlement case was dismissed. Thereafter, suppressing the said facts he filed another case before the Court of Settlement which was allowed and, thereafter, he filed instant writ petition and managed to get the impugned order which was a fraud upon the Court.
5. Mr Murad Reza, learned Additional Attorney General, appearing for the appellants, submits that earlier the respondent Abdur Rouf, on behalf of the present respondent M/s Hanif instituted Settlement Case No, 45 of 1990 and the Court of Settlement dismissed the said case and by suppressing the said fact, he again filed Settlement Case No. 300 of 1995 and managed to get the order for exclusion of the suit property from 'Ka' list of abandoned properties which was a fraud so the subsequent order is a nullity.
6. Mr Mohd. Abdul Hai, learned Advocate-on-Record in his submission supported the judgment and order of the High Court Division.
7. It appears from the judgment and order passed in Settlement Case Nos. 564 and 565 of 1988 and 45 of 1990 that all the cases were filed in respect of property appertaining to House No. 49, CES (A), Gulshan, Road No. 96, Gulshan Avenue, and Dhaka for exclusion of the same from the 'Ka' list of the abandoned properties. The Court of Settlement dismissed those three cases by a common judgment and order dated 19-11-1995. Out of those three cases Abdur Rouf instituted Settlement Case No. 45 of 1990. Said Abdur Rauf as Managing Partner of M/s Hanif Brothers filed the aforesaid writ petition and Settlement Case No. 300 of 1995.
8. It further appears from the judgment of those three cases including Settlement Case No. 45 of 1990 filed by Abdur Rauf that the Court of  Settlement observed that the Government allotted the disputed plot for accommodation of Ambassador of Afghanistan after repairing the building thereon spending huge money. In the said judgment, it was further observed that the original non-Bengali owner Abdur Rouf was neither in occupation of the disputed house nor he was found available in the country. Though Abdur Rouf was the petitioner of the said Settlement Case No. 45 of 1990 but he did not to appear before the Court of Settlement personally and his whereabouts being not known, the property, in question, appeared to have been legally included in the list of the Abandoned Buildings. Considering all the aspects those three cases were dismissed. Thereafter, suppressing the said fact the respondent M/s Hanif Brothers represented by its managing partner Abdur Rouf instituted the second Settlement Case and managed to get the order from the Court of settlement and, thereafter, filing this instant writ petition obtained the impugned direction.
9. Every person is answerable for the truth of his statement. There is a legal maxim that tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Neither in the Court of Settlement nor in the High Court Division the writ petitioner respondent stated that earlier he filed settlement case which was dismissed on merit. He was totally silent about his earlier case and the observation made by the Court of Settlement inasmuch as it was his duty to bring it to the notice of the Court. Such silence is fraud upon the Court because it was his duty to brng the truth the notice of the Courts. He concealed the material facts that there was a decision of the Court of Settlement that the disputed property has been enlisted as abandoned property rightly and that the said case was brought by the respondent. His second case was barred by law since his claim was negative by the previous decision. A judgment obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and nonest in the eye of law. The writ petitioner, while obtaining the judgment of the High Court Division, suppressed the material document which amounted to fraud.
10. Since the judgment and order of the Court of Settlement has been obtained by practising fraud and pursuant to the said order, the writ petitioner-respondent managed to get the impugned judgment from the High Court Division, the same is a nullity.
11. Accordingly, we find substance in the appeal.
Thus, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order of the High Court Division  is hereby set aside.

More News For this Category

Section 55 Of The VAT Act

(From previous issue) :21. In Sekandar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Customs Excise and VAT reported in 63 DLR 272 while resolving the issue as to issuing demand notice

Land-locked Property

Appellate Division : (Civil) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J     Md Imman Ali  J     AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury J Anowara……………………….………….Appellants               vsAbdul Rab Hawlader and another…………………......................RespondentsJudgment August 5th, 2015 Easement Act

Aggrieved Can Appeal Against Judgment By 90 Days

High Court Division :(Special Statutory Jurisdiction) Borhanuddin J Sardar Md Rashed Jahangir J Mohammad Hanif………..…….Appellant           vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate TribunalDhaka, and others………..…Respondents    Judgment     November 20th

Failure of Repayment

(From previous issue) :8. Subsequently, the names of the petitioners were classified in the lists of CIB and the petitioners challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 7161-62 of 2017 &

Section 55 Of The VAT Act

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Farah Mahbub J SM Maniruzzaman J BRAC Bank Limited ... ................. Petitioner……………………………VS National Board of Revenue and others…….………Respondents Judgment November 7th, 2018 Constitution of

Change in Waqf Management

(From previous issue) 19. The one and only core ground taken by the writ petitioner is that the inquiry officer (respondent No.4) without notifying the petitioner conducted the alleged

Failure of Repayment

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Ashfaqul Islam J Mohammad Ali J Nassa Tipei Spinners Limited and others .............Petitioners                    vs     Judgment February 26th, 2019 Bangladesh 

Code Of Criminal Procedure

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) ANM Bashir Ullah   J Mustafa Zaman Islam J  Sumon Ahmed (Md) alias Sumon-----------Accused-Petitioner             vs State--------Respondent Judgment July 24th, 2018     Code of

Change in Waqf Management

High Court Division : (Special Original Jurisdiction) Moyeenul Islam  Chowdhury J Md Ashraful Kamal J Habib Ahmed Shukur     Morshed……………Petitioner         vs  Waqf Administrator Bangladesh and others……………. Respondents JudgmentSeptember

Sale And Distribution Of Proceeds

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)Quazi Reza-ul Hoque JMohammad Ullah JAbdul Hai Munshi...................Petitioner vsDeputy General Manager, Sonali Bank Limited, Dhaka and 3 (three) others. Opposite- Parties Code of Civil