Suit Title: Mosharraf
Hossain Mia vs. Mosammat Hasina Begum & others [43 DLR (1991) 254]
Judges: Abdul Bari
Sarker & Abdul Hasib.
Date of Judgment:
May13, 1990
Under Section: 94 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Supplemental
proceedings: In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated
the Court may, if it is so prescribed,-
(a) issue a warrant to
arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should
not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order
for security commit him to the civil prison;
(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property;
(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;
(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;
(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.
Under Section: 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Saving of inherent
powers of Court: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary
for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Short description of the suit: The relevant facts of the case are that the apposite parties filed the
above suit kabalas executed by the defendants on 7.4.84, 6.5.84 and 13.5.84 are
illegal, void and not binding upon the wakf estate, etc. the plaintiffs also
filed an application for injunction to restrain the defendants from changing
the nature and character of the suit land during the pendency of the suit and
the learned subordinate Judge by order dated 9.2.85 ordered for maintaining
status quo with respect of the suit land. The plaintiff after wards filed two
cases for violation of injunction namely miscellaneous case Nos. 33 of 1988 and
76 of 1988 against cases are pending. In the mean time, the plaintiffs filed a
petition under section 94 of the code of civil procedure for arrest of the
defendant petitioner on the ground stated in the petition. In the petition, it
is inter alia, alleged that the defendant No 8 namely the present petitioner
before as is again and again violating the orders of the court and he is going
to cause damage to the suit properties and as such, he should be arrested and
directed to furnish bond and security for violating the courts orders. The
learned subordinate Judge by the impugned order allowed the petition. The
impugned order of the learned subordinate Judge runs as follows:
’20.02.1989 বাদী পক্ষে একখানা দরখাস্ত করিয়া দরখাস্তের
বর্ণিত কারনে ৫।১১।৮৮ ইং তারিখে প্রার্থীত মতে ৮নং বিবাদীর বিরুদ্ধে গ্রেফতারী
পরোয়ানা ইস্যু করিবার আদেশ করা হয়। দরখাস্তের অনুলিপি বিবাদী পক্ষে আপত্তি সহকারে
গ্রহন করেন। শুনিলাম, প্রার্থনা মঞ্জুর করা হইল। ৮নং বিবাদীর উপর গ্রেফতারী
পরোয়ানা ইস্যু করা হউক।
Principle of the suit: - Warrant to arrest the defendant- As the suit is for determination of
right to immovable property, the subordinate judge had no jurisdiction to pass
the order of arrest of the defendant nor such an order could be passed in
exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
----------------
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন