Decided on July 23,1997

Ranu Begum Appellant
Kazi Liakat Ali Respondents


BIMALENDU BIKASH ROY CHOUDHURY,J. - (1.) The plaintiffs are the petitioners before us. They brought in the Fourth Court of Assistant Judge, Dhaka a suit being Title Suit No. 234 of 1996 against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and others to have it declared that stamp paper purporting to be a receipt given by them for a sum of Taka 10,00,000 was forged fraudulent and not binding on them. After the institution of the suit they made an application for temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from taking any step to realise the said amount from them. The learned Assistant Judge thereupon issued a shoe cause notice to the said defendants. In pursuance thereof, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written objection thereto. As no step was taken by the plaintiffs on 12 February 1997, the date fixed for hearing of the matter the application was rejected by the learned Assistant Judge after hearing the learned Advocate for the defendants in support of the written objection, The plaintiffs moved the High Court Division with an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being Civil Revision No. 1216 of 1997 against the said order. A learned Single Judge of the said Court discharged the Rule, by his order dated May 1997, on the view that the revision case was incompetent, as the plaintiffs not availed themselves of the remedy provided in Order 43, rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The plaintiffs have now presented this petition seeking leave to appeal therefrom. They contend, that having regard to the facts of the case, the High Court Division was not justified in discharging the Rule.
(3.) The exercise of the revisional power under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is a discretionary one. Ordinarily it is not to be exercised where there is an alternative remedy open to a party.;

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