BANGLADESH Vs. UTTAR JAMALGARH MATSAJIBI SAMABAYA SAMITY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these four appeals by special leave, Government of Bangladesh is the appellant and the matter relates to a petition of compromise which was accepted by a Single Judge of the High Court Division (Sylhet Sessions) by a common order dated 29 October, 1987 in Civil Revisions Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 14 of 1984. The appellant's simple contention is that it was not party to the compromise and that no rule having been issued against it, the order accepting the compromise is not binding upon it. The appellant-Government has been represented in these appeals by Mr. A.W. Bhuiyan, learned Additional Attorney General, but none has appeared for the respondents.

(2.) The matter had originated from Title Suit No. 51 of 1982 of the First Court of Subordinate Judge, Sunamganj, which was filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (plaintiffs) against respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1)Uttar Jamalgarh Matsyajibi Samabaya Samity. The appellant-Government of Bangladesh, was defendant No. 4, Director of Fisheries and District Fishery Corporation were respectively defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in that suit. The Government -defendant, by a deed of lease dated 15 September 1981, leased out a fishery known as 'Bogiyani Group Fishery' to the plaintiffs-respondents for three years from 1389 B.S. to 1391 B.S. with a provision for renewal for the next three years, that is, up to 1394 B.S. with a provision fro renewal for the next three years, that is, upto 1394 B.S. While the plaintiffs were in possession of the fishery under the said lease, the Director of Fisheries (defendant No. 2), by an order dated 5 October 1981, leased out the said fishery to respondent defendant No. 1 for the same period, more or less; that is why the plaintiffs filed the suit praying, among other things, for a declaration of nullity of the defendants' subsequent lease order dated 5 October 1981 in favour of defendant No. 1. The Government (defendant No. 4) and the subsequent lessee, defendant No. 1, contested the suit; but it was decreed by the Subordinate Judge by a judgment dated 31 August 1983. By this decree the plaintiffs' lease upto 1391 B.S. was held valid and that he would also get renewal of the lease for the next three years, from 1392 to 1394 B.S. Plaintiffs' further prayer for permanent injunction was, however, refused.

(3.) This decree was challenged by both parties in Title Appeals Nos. 259 and 269 of 1983. These appeals were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, First Court, Sylhet, by a judgment and decree dated 13 December 1983. By this appellate decree, the trial Court's decree was modified to the extent that plaintiffs' lease period was restricted to the original period of three years, that is, upto 1391 B.S. and their prayer for renewal was rejected as being 'premature'.