FARID HOSSAIN Vs. MOSAMMAT JAHANARA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued, at the instance of petitioner defendant No. 6 calling upon the opposite party plaintiffs Nos. 1-9 to show cause as to why the impugned Order dated 07.03.2013 passed by learned Joint District Judge and Arbitration Adalat, Dhaka in Title Suit No. 4890 of 2008 allowing the application dated 29.07.2012 in part filed by the plaintiff-opposite party Nos. 1-9 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of deposition and cross examination of P.W. 1 and discharging the plaintiffs from submitting the Memorandum of Understanding should not be set-aside.

(2.) Short facts, necessary for disposal of the Rule, is that, the opposite parties No. 1-9 as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 4890 of 2008 before the learned District Judge, central filing section, Dhaka against the present petitioner and the opposite parties No. 10-14 impleading them as defendants Nos. 1-6 praying for recovery of khash possession after declaration of title in the suit land shown in the schedule of the plaint. Ultimately the suit was transferred to the Joint District Judge, 7th Court (Arbitration Adalat), Dhaka, for disposal.

(3.) The defendant Nos. 1-3, 4-5 and 4 and 6 contested the suit by filing three separate written statements and the defendant No. 6 stated in his written statement that the suit is not maintainable in its present form and manner and that the suit has no cause of action. The plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hand; the plaintiffs filed the suit by suppression of facts; the suit is barred by law of limitation. The suit is bad for defect of parties, the suit is barred by section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; the suit is barred by estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest, owner ship and possession in the suit land. The defendant No. 6 stated that he has been owning and possessing the suit land by way of purchase from its original owner since 1974 to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and other defendants. The defendant No. 6 also mutated the suit land in his name and has been paying the rent and taxes to the Government and City Corporation; that in the city survey the suit land was recorded in the name of the defendant No. 6 vide khatian No. 425, plot No. 3337; that in 1994 the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka and others tried to evict the defendant No. 6 from the suit land claiming it as C.S. Plot No. 380; that challenging the said order of eviction the defendant No. 6 as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 61 of 1994 before the Assistant Judge, 4th Court, Dhaka for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the Deputy Commissioner and others; that on 28.03.1995 the suit was decreed declaring that the suit land is situated at C.S. Plot No. 376 and that also a decree of permanent injunction was given in the said suit against the Deputy Commissioner and others restraining them from the suit land at C.S. Plot No. 376 in the name of C.S. Plot No. 380; that against the said decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction the Deputy Commissioner and others did not take any steps before the competent court.