High Court Division · Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Chita Sreerampur Matshyajibi Samabaya Samity Ltd v Sajjadur Rahman (Shajid) and others
First Misc Appeal 275/1999 · Decided 14 May 2026
A fishermen's cooperative society sued in the court of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Sylhet for a declaration of its leasehold right in part of the Akhaikuri Group fishery, claiming it had taken the lease for 1404 to 1406 B.S. as highest tenderer but had been denied possession of one portion, into which the defendants had trespassed. The trial court rejected its application for a temporary injunction and vacated an earlier status quo order. In 1999 a Division Bench admitted the society's appeal and, in a connected Civil Rule, granted an ad-interim injunction protecting its possession. The appeal later came before a Single Bench under Rule 1B of Chapter II of the High Court Division Rules, 1973. No one appeared for either party, and the result of the suit was unknown. Noting that more than 26 years had passed and the lease period had long expired, the court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, discharged the Rule and vacated the interim order.
- Q1
Whether an appeal against refusal of a temporary injunction protecting a fishery lease survived after the lease period had long expired.
- Under Rule 1B of Chapter II of the Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, 1973, such a first miscellaneous appeal is now to be heard by a Single Bench, though earlier admitted by a Division Bench.
- Where the lease period on which the claim to an injunction rested had long expired, the appeal against refusal of the temporary injunction and the connected Rule had become infructuous.
- There is a legitimate expectation that a suit will be disposed of within a reasonable time.
- The ad-interim injunction granted in the connected Rule was vacated on dismissal of the appeal.
Be that as it may, in my view, since the lease period expired long before this appeal as well as the civil rule has become infractuous. As such this appeal is dismissed as being infructuous.
In the court’s own words.
First Misc Appeal 275/1999, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 4 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Present
Mr. Justice Md. Riaz Uddin Khan
First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 275 of 1999
With
Civil Rule No. 791 (FM) of 1999
IN THE MATTER OF:
Chita Sreerampur Matshyajibi Samabaya Samity Ltd
… Plaintiff-Appellant
-Versus-
Sajjadur Rahman (Shajid) and others
… Plaintiff-Respondents
None
…For the parties
Judgment on: 14.05.2026
Md. Riaz Uddin Khan, J:
1This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 18.10.1999 passed by the subjudge, 3rd court, Sylhet in Title Suit No.13 of 1998 refusing the prayer for temporary injunction.
2A Division Bench of this Court admitted this appeal by order dated 02.12.1999 and on the same date by issuing Rule in Civil Rule No.791 (FM) of 1999 restrained the respondents by an order of ad-interim injunction from interfering with the possession of the appellant in the fishery as prayed for.
3Though this First Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court as per the then rule of the Supreme Court (HCD) Rules, 1973 but at present as per Rule-1B of Chapter-II of the Rules, 1973 this appeal is to be heard by a Single Bench.
4Facts for disposal of this First Miscellaneous Appeal in brief are that the appellant filed Title Suit No.13 of 1998 before the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Sylhet for declaration of lease-hold right in schedule- II portion of the suit fishery named Akhaikuri Group fishery of Sylhet District contending inter alia that the plaintiff took lease at the yearly rental of Taka 6,53,310.00 as highest tenderer of the scheduled fishery. The lease for 1404 B.S to 1406 B.S was concluded by payment of rent for 1404 B.S, execution of lease deed and delivery of possession. That nondelivery of possession of schedule-II portion of the suit fishery and tress-pass thereinto by defendantrespondents compelled the appellant to file the suit for declaration of lease hold right in the fishery, permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs.
5After filing the suit the appellant filed an application for temporary injunction against the defendants No.1 to 13 whereupon the learned Subordinate Judge issued show cause notice upon the defendants to show cause as to why temporary injunction should not be granted and was further pleased to grant an order of status-quo and ultimately after hearing the parties, perusing the application for temporary injunction and written objection filed by the defendants by the order dated 18.10.1999 rejected the prayer for temporary injunction and consequently vacated the order of status-quo passed earlier.
6Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18.10.1999 this First
Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.12.1999 was pleased to admit this appeal and passed the interim order by issuing Rule as stated at the very outset.
7I have perused the memorandum of appeal and also gone through the impugned order. I have also perused the application for injunction upon which the Civil Rule No.791 (FM) of 1999 is issued.
8The appellant stated that the suit fishery has an area of 449.53 acres and included in its area schedule II and III portion of the fishery and he took lease for the years 1404 B.S to 1406 B.S and paid rent for the year 1404 B.S but did not make payment of rent for 1405 and 1406 B.S due to no fault of the appellant but because his offer by an application to pay the rent was not accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet.
9It appears from record that this Court by order dated 02.12.1999 restrained the respondent from entering into the disputed fishery. In the meantime, more than 26 years has been elapsed. The lease period has long been expired. Since no one appears for the parties for which this Court was not informed about the result of the Title Suit No. 13 of 1998. It is legitimate expectation that the suit would be disposed of within reasonable time.
10Be that as it may, in my view, since the lease period expired long before this appeal as well as the civil rule has become infractuous. As such this appeal is dismissed as being infructuous. The connected rule
being Civil Rule No.791 (FM) of 1999 is also discharged in the light of this judgment. However, there will be no order as to cost. The interim order dated 02.12.1999 passed by this Court stands vacated.
11Communicate this judgment and order at once. Ziaul Karim Bench Officer
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
