MONI BEGUM Vs. RAJDHANI UNNAYAN KARTRIPAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this appeal by leave is whether the provisions of section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing that "the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction", apply in terms to proceedings in writ in the original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution.

(2.) The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 330 of 1987 in the High Court Division challenging an order of requisition dated 30.12.63 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dhaka and a notice dated 4.7.87 issued by respondent No. 1 Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakha asking the appellants to vacate the requisitioned land. A Rule Nisi was issued thereupon on 15.7.87. Neither respondent No. 1 nor the Government-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted any affidavit-in-opposition and no one appeared at the time of hearing of the Rule. The learned Judges of the High Court Division after hearing the learned Advocate for the appellants for 3 days made the Rule absolute and wrote out a lengthy judgment on the merit of the case on 3.8.92.

(3.) On 26.9.92 respondent No. 1 filed an application for restoration of the writ petition on the ground that the law clerk of the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 did not inform of the date of hearing and so he was unaware of this matter. It was brought to his knowledge by a lawyer friend when the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 was lying seriously if in Suhrawardy Hospital. When the matter was heard in the High Court Division he was actually out of town to political meetings in his constituency and in visiting his dentist. By filing a supplementary application respondent No. 1 made certain statements with regard to the merit of the Rule itself. The appellants filed an affidavit-in-reply thereto.