SURUZZAMAL Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the petitioner. He is seeking leave to appeal from an order of the High Court Division dated 25 November 1991, in Civil Rule No. 115(F) of 1990, condoning & respondent-plaintiff s delay of 576 days in filing an appeal from the trial Court's Judgment and decree, passed in Tide Suit No. 69 of 1981.

(2.) This suit was tried analogously with Title Suit No. 339 of 1981. Both the suits related to a property which was claimed by respondent, Government of Bangladesh, as an abandoned property a claim denied by the petitioner who claimed title therein. TS No. 69 of 1981 was filed by respondent for a declaration that the property is an abandoned property; and TS No. 339 of 1981 was filed by the petitioner for a declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial Court, namely Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Dhaka by a common Judgment dated 31 August 1988, dismissed the governmentrespondent's suit and decreed the petitioner's suit. In TS No, 339 of 198 1, respondent filed an appeal FA No. 181 of 1990 - after a delay of 535 days. The delay was condoned by the High Court Division by an order dated 28 August 1990 in Civil Rule No. 83(F) of 1990. Petitioner did not challenge this condonation. Respondent then filed an appeal-FAT No. 206 of 1990-in TS No. 169 of 1981 also, after a delay of 576 days, and on their application under section 5, Limitation Act, the High Court Division, by the impugned order, condoned the delay subject to payment of Taka 3,500.00 as cost to this Petitioner by the Government.

(3.) Mr. TH Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has seriously assailed the condonation of this inordinate delay of about two years. He has contended that the delay has not been explained by the respondent and that the ground stated in their application under section 5, Limitation Act clearly shows that the delay was caused by willful neglect and serious laches on the part of the Government's officers, particularly the law-officers involved in this matter. Learned Counsel has also criticised the view taken by the learned Judges of the High Court Division that in appropriate cases the Government, as a litigant, might be treated on a different footing vis-a-vis a private litigant; he has pointed out that an observation of this Court in the case of Bangladesh Vs. Jaferuddin, 1986 BLD (AD) 180 has been misappreciated by the learned Judges.