ISHAQUE HOSSAIN CHOWDHURY Vs. SHAMSUN NESSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule arises out of an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order dated 12-7-88 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, 6th Court, Dhaka, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to add him as a defendant in Title Suit No. 183 of 1986, which is still pending in the court.

(2.) Facts leading to this, in short, are that opposite party Mst. Shamsun Nessa Begum as the plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 183 of 1986 on 17-8-86 before the Assistant Judge, 6th Court, Dhaka for a declaration against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 namely, Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue, Dhaka, in charge of Vested Non-Resident Property and the Government of Bangladesh represented by Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka alleging that the suit property originally belonged to (1) Girish Chandra Mondal and (2) Rup Chand Mondal and while they were owners in possession, Rup Chand Mondal transferred his 8 annas share in the property by a registered deed dated 11-12-63 in favour of Girish Chandra Mondal who is the owner of the rest half of the property and delivered possession on that day. Girish Chandra Mondal is the brother of Rup Chand Mondal. Thereafter, Girish having been 16 annas owner of the suit property transferred the suit land by a registered deed dated 26-11-70 to the plaintiff Shamsun Nessa Begum and delivered possession on that day. The plaintiffs case is that she on purchase entered into possession and constructed hut therein. Her name was recorded in the khatian and she paid rents to the Government on proper receipt and since purchase she had been peacefully enjoying and possessing the suit land adversely and openly to the knowledge of all. While she was in such possession she came to know on 11-12-85 that the suit land had been recorded as a vested property in Vested Property Case No. 16/81 and has been leased out illegally as vested property. It was illegal and the Vested Property Authority namely, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no right, title in the suit land and cannot treat the property as a vested property in the year 1981 because the vendor of the plaintiff is a Bangladeshi national and he transferred the property to the plaintiff who is also a Bangladeshi national in the year 1970. But after the Vested Property Case No. 16 of 1981 had been started the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the Vested Property Authority namely defendant Nos. 1 and 2. At the end of the proceedings, 9.7.88 was fixed for argument and the court having heard the arguments advanced by the learned lawyer appearing for the respective parties fixed 16.7.88 for judgment. On that day in the evening at about 4.20 Ishaque Hossain Chowdhury, the present petitioner before this Court, appeared with a vokalatnama and prayed to be added as a party. A copy of that petition was served on the lawyer of the plaintiff who was accepted with objection. On that the court fixed on 12-7-88 for hearing. On 12-7-88 the matter was heard in presence of the parties when it was argued by the learned Advocate appearing for Ishaque Hossain Chowdhury that regarding this property they have also filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and he has interest in the property but he has not been made a party in the present suit, hence he ought to be added as a party. The court, however, rejected the application by its order dated 12-7-88. Against that this Rule was obtained.