Ex parte order passed in the Other Class Suit No. 18/2018
The record is taken up for passing necessary order. This is a suit for a permanent injunction. Perused the plaint, the deposition of the plaintiff as P.W- 01, the documentary evidence marked as exhibits No. 01-05, and the case record. It appears that the plaintiff filed the suit before this court having jurisdiction with paying proper court fees and seeking a decree for perpetual injunction simpliciter. Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 recognizes any aggrieved person’s right to file a lawsuit for such relief as prayed for. So, it is decided that the suit is maintainable in its current form and manner.
Upon such perusal and consideration of the adduced evidence (Ex: 1-5), it appears that the plaintiff institution has acquired good prima facie title to the suit lands through a registered deed (ex: 02) from a person who gained title to the suit lands from the recorded RS recorded tenant Panchobibi, Kofijan Bibi, and Chhofura bibi. The plaintiff turned up before the court with some convincingly possessory documents (Ex. 3-5) that include, inter alia, a DCR, a rent receipt, and a proposed Khatian, which manifestly demonstrate its clear de jure possession in the suit lands, whereas the evidence of the PW-01 has sufficient standing for the de factor possession of the suit land. Hence, it cogently appears that the plaintiff’s case has been proved by evidence as well as sufficient implications that it has a good arguable case and exclusive possession therein. Nothing is proved to be contrary in the light of materials no record.
The general principle of evidence law is that ‘the burden lies on the Plaintiff to prove his case and he must succeed on his own strength only and not at the weakness of the adversary’ (3 BLC 6). In respect of the instant suit, the cumulative effect and cogency of legal inference help the court hold that the plaintiffs have, as held earlier, been successful in establishing his prima facie title to and proving exclusive possession in the suit lands. ‘In a simple suit for permanent injunction with regard to a disputed landed property, relief is available to a person who is in possession’ (vide 43 DLR AD 215).
In view of all of the above discussion, the Court is of view that these issues are decided in the plaintiff’s favor and thus, the instant suit is found to be fit for exercising the Court’s discretion in decreeing the same. As such, the Plaintiffs may get relief as prayed for. On consideration and cognizance of the Pleadings, facts, surrounding circumstances of the case, shreds of evidence on record, and relevant laws, it appears to the Court that the suit deserves to be decreed.
Court fee paid is sufficient.
Hence,
it is
ordered
that
the suit is decreed ex-parte against
defendants without any order as to cost. The defendants are hereby permanently
restrained from entering into and disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs,
in any manner whatsoever, to the landed property described in the schedule to
the plaint.
Composed and corrected by