GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. MD. JAHANGIR ALI
LAWS(BANG)-2001-5-5
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Decided on May 27,2001

Government Of Bangladesh Appellant
VERSUS
Md. Jahangir Ali Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MD.ABDUS SALAM,J. - (1.) An application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 23-6-99 against the judgment and decree dated 6-8-95 and 12-8-95 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Kurigram in Other Appeal No.1 of 1995 affirming the Judgment and decree dated 15-11-94 and 17-11-94 respectively passed by Assistant Judge, Sadar, Kurigram in Other Class Suit No.68 of 1992. When the Civil Revision was filed there was delay of 1320 days, as such the petitioner filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Accordingly a Rule was issued calling upon plaintiff-respondent-opposite party to show cause as to why the delay in filing the Revisional Application should not be condoned.
(2.) Plaintiff opposite party appeared and filed a counter affidavit sworn on 24-5-01 to resist the condonation petition. During hearing the learned Assistant Attorney-General Mr. Sajjad Ali Chowdhury on behalf of the Government petitioner submits that the decree was signed on 12-8-95 by the District Judge, Kurigram in Other Appeal No.1 of 1995, due to office formalities, filing of the Revisional Application has been delayed by 1320 days: decree was signed on 12-8-95, application for certified copies was filed on 2-11-97, the certified copy was ready for delivery on 1-12-97; the certified copies along with necessary papers were sent to the Solicitor Wing on 2-6-98, the case was sent to the Attorney-General office on 18-8-98; after obtaining explanation of delay from the Deputy Commissioner, Kurigram, the Revisional application was prepared and the affidavit was sworn on 23-6-99. The learned Assistant Attorney-General submits that the delay of 1320 days was unintentional and bonafide and without any willful negligence of the petitioner and if delay is not condoned the petitioners will suffer irreparable injuries. In support of his arguments the learned Assistant Attorney-General cited a case law reported in 1986 BLD (AD) 180, Bangladesh Vs. Jaheruddin and 1 BLC 105 Government of Bangladesh Vs. Amir Hossain Munshi and others and submits that the Government does not enjoy any special privilege but in appropriate circumstances some consideration may be extended to the Government appearing as a litigant before the Court.
(3.) The learned Advocate for plaintiff opposite party Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan argued refuting all the points mentioned in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and in support of the counter affidavit dated 24-5-2001 submits that the learned District Judge signed the decree on 12-8-95 and the defendant appellant petitioner filed application for certified copies on 2-11-97 after more than two years when the civil revision was barred by limitation and after different correspondence the papers were sent to the Solicitor on 2-6-98 and the revisional application was prepared with affidavit on 23rd June, 1999 and in the meantime an inordinate delay of 1320 days took place; he submitted that the explanation given by the petitioner is vague, the negligence and laches on the part of the inefficient Government officials do not come within the purview of sufficient explanation for condonation of delay. Moreover, a primary school teacher to the decree in the trial Court for absorbing him in the service as a primary teacher after rendering service for a few years and the learned District Judge, Kurigram concurrent findings and decisions in favour of the plaintiff opposite parties and if the plaintiff opposite-party is allowed to be absorbed in Government service as a primary school teacher, the Government and the Government official and the petitioners are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss. In support of his arguments the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party cited a case law report in 21 DLR 824, Province of East Pakistan Vs. Abdul Hamid Darjee and submits that law does not make any discrimination between the Government and a private litigant, in respect of condign the delay Negligence of an agent or a servant of the Government is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. He also cited another case law reported in 1997 BLD (AD), 57 Additional Deputy commissioner (Rev.) and Assistant Custodian, Vested Property, Sirajgong Vs. Md. Abdul Majid and other and submits that long practice has been continued over a decade for filing Civil Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires that a Revisional application is to be filed within a period of 90 days and he submits with full force that it is not a fit case for condonation of delay and the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be rejected. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.