JABBAR JUTE MILLS LTD. Vs. MD. ABUL KASHEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2002 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.4005 of 2002 allowing the revisional application summarily.

(2.) Short facts are that the plaintiff instituted Other Class Suit No.39 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Kishoreganj Sadar for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession of the second schedule land claiming title and ownership of the land. The suit was contested by the defendant, by filing written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 29.10.2000 decreed the suit against which the defendant preferred Other Class Appeal No.360 of 2000 before the learned District Judge, Kishoreganj. The Appeal on transfer was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Kishoreganj and in the appeal the appellate court by a suo-motu order dated 23.04.2002 directed for holding local investigation and further directed the plaintiff to pay a sum of Tk.1,000/- as commission fee. Being aggrieved the defendant preferred civil revisional application before the High Court Division and the High Court Division by the impugned order allowed the revisional application summarily without issuing a Rule.

(3.) Leave was granted to consider the submission that the High Court Division should have passed the impugned order by issuing a Rule upon hearing the present appellant who was opposite party before the High Court Division and hence the appellant was prejudiced by the impugned order at the High Court Division which has been passed against him and without hearing him by setting aside the order of the appellate court and the same order was passed without giving a chance to the appellant to submit his case before the High Court Division and the further submission that by summarily allowing the revisional application, the High Court Division practically gave substantive relief sought in the revisional application and hence the High Court Division erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and order.