CHAIRMAN, MYMENSINGH POURASHAVA, MYMENSINGH Vs. KASIMONNESSA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2007 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 3851 of 2000 making the rule absolute arising out of judgment and order dated 14.062000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Mymensingh in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 1997 reversing those of dated 30.10.1996 passed by the learned subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), 1st Court, Mymensingh in Miscellaneous Case No. 123 of 1993 dismissing the same.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that, the predecessor of the plaintiff-respondent instituted Title Suit No. 71 of 1983 before the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), 1st Court. Mymensingh for partition and declaration of title and recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint against the respondents and after filing the suit summons were duly served upon the defendants and defendant Nos. 55 and 56 appeared with Vokalthnama and contested the suit by filing written statement and defendant Nos.1-15 and 30 appeared with Vokalathnama and contested the suit by filing an application for separate Saham' and thereafter the defendant Nos. 30 and 55 (Ka)-55(Uma)-56 amicably settled the matter out of Court and filed a Solenama for Saham' and the learned trial Court accordingly passed a preliminary decree and the said Solenama was treated as a part of final decree by his judgment and decree dated 05.05.1993 and 18-05-1993 respectively.

(3.) Defendant-petitioner No. 54 as petitioner filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of the Code of Civil Procedure registered Miscellaneous Case No. 123 of 1993 on 04.08.1993 against the said judgment and decree passed ex parte against him before the trial Court stating, inter alia, that the summons of the suit was not lawfully served upon him and the plaintiff obtained the decree ex parte against him in collusion with some staff of the Pourashava showing the summon duly served upon him and in collusion with the defendant Nos. 30, 55(ka) to 55 (Uma) and 56 filing a solenama before the trial Court. His further case is that one Mir Hasan Abdullah Shoyeb tenant of the Pourashava came to know about the ex parte decree and on his information he took the certified copy of the same through his learned Advocate and filed the case.