MEMORANDAM OF APPEAL AGAINST ORIGINAL DECREE

DISTRICT-HOBIGONG
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT,
 MEMORANDAM OF APPEAL AGAINST ORIGINAL DECREE 
Civil Appeal No ……… of  2010
IN THE MATTER OF
Manager, Jalalabad Gs, ShahjiBazer,
Post: Shahji Bazar, P. S: Madhobpur
District: Hobigonj.
…………….Plaintiff-Appellant
VERSUS
M/S.Z & A Industries Private Ltd. Nopara, Post: Saiham Nagar,
P.S: Madhopur, Upzilla: Madhobpur, District: Hobijong,
Represented by its Managing Director Md.Mohiuzamman, son of late Md. Aminul Islam, Vill: Itkhola, Post:Saihamnagar, P.S: Madhobpur, District: Hobigong
……………..Defendant-Respondent
Appeal is valued at Taka           :  4, 62,417/-
Money Suit was valued at Taka  : 4, 62,417/-

The above named Plaintiff-appellant, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010 passed by Mr. Faruk Ahmed, Joint District Judge,1st  court, Hobigong in Money Suit No. 02 of 2005, dismissing the suit on contest, begs to prefer this appeal before this honourable Court on the following amongst other:
GROUNDS

1.         I.            For that the learned Joint District Judge passed the impugned judgment and decree without applying his judicial mind in drawing up the judgment and decree which led to erroneous decision in the judgment.
2.      II.            For that the learned court below erred in law in not considering the fact that the defendant respondent himself admitted that he made application dated 27.11.03 to disconnect his gas supply to his factory.
3.    III.            For that the court below erred in law in not considering the fact that although the defendant respondent deposited that there a gas explosion in his digester machine he did not exhibit the alleged G.D. number 73/97 or the letter sent to the plaintiff petitioner.
4.   IV.            For that the learned court below erred in law in not considering the fact that the defendant respondent himself admitted in his deposition that he made an agreement dated 14.02.01 with the plaintiff petitioner to pay arrear bail by installment.
5.      V.            For that the court below erred in not considering the fact the although the defendant respondent deposited that there was boiler explosion in his factory he did not exhibit the alleged G.D, no 841 or the letter sent to the petitioner,
6.   VI.            For that the learned trail court came to a wrong finding in not considering the fact that the defendant admitted the payment of money to the plaintiff- petitioner by an agreement signed dated 14.02.2001 in which the defendant also agreed to pay outstanding bail by 25 installments and this agreement has been duly exhibited.
7. For that the learned trail court committed an error of law in not considering the fact that the plaintiff- petitioner produced periodical and itemized bail dated 28.12.03.
8.    For that the learned trail court committed an error of law in not considering the fact that the suit for injunction No. 01/04 filed by the defendant-respondent against the plaintiff- petitioner was dismissed on contest.
9.    IX.            For that the learned trail court committed an error of law resulting in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice in not believing the D.W.s’ deposition and the documents produced during trail as exhibits.
10.      X.            For that the learned trail court committed an error of law resulting in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice in not believing the statements of the defendant –respondent made in the affidavit (exhibit-4) dated 29.01.03 admitting the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner.
11.    XI.            For that the learned trail court did not properly examine the evidence on record in its truest perspective which led to miscarriage of justice.
12. For that the learned trail court has not applied his judicial mind in examination the exhibit and depositions by the witnesses during trail.
13. For that the learned trail court has not applied his mind in examining the provisions of the contract between the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant respondent.
14. For that the learned trial court has erred in law in not considering the fact that the plaintiff was cross examined on point of meter reading gas supplied to the defendant respondent and the learned court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff  was questioned twist on meter reading by the defendant during the cross examination.

WHEREFORE it is most humble prayed that Your honour would graciously be pleased to call for record, issue as usual notice upon the respondent and after perusal of the record and the cause shown if any be pleased to allow the appeal after setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010 and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Honourble Court may deem fit and proper. Pending hearing of the appeal stay the operation of the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010 and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Honourble Court may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, your petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray.





CERTIFICATE

I have gone through the impugned judgment and decrees dated   30.03.2010 passed by learned joint District judge in Money suit No 02 of 2005 and decree dated 30.03.10 and plaint and other relevant papers and documents and found that there are good grounds for this appeal which I will support at the hearing of this appeal before this Hon’ble court.

Md. Anawarul Najim
Advocate
Enclosure:
1)      Memorandum of appeal;
2)      Judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010 passed by Mr.Faruk Ahamed Joint District Judge,1st Court Hobigong in Money No. 02 of 2005, dismissing the suit on contest.
3)      Vakalatnama.