IN THE COURT OF FIRST JOINT DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTAGONG. Act- 39 Case No.

339/06 Sujit Dey and others ................. Petitioner. Versus Sunanda Dey ............................... Objector. WRITTEN OBJECTION AGAINST THE PETITION FILED BY THE OBJECTOR FOR AMENDMENT OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION. The above named petitioners beg to state as follows :1. That, the objector has or had no locus standi to file the petition for amendment hence the same is liable to be rejected. 2. That, the petition for amendment under order 6, rule 17 of CPC is without any basis, hence deserves no consideration and liable to be rejected. 3. That, relating to the succession act since Provision of Order 6 rule 17 CPC is not applicable relating to the grant of certificate/ petition for amendment of the written objection is not maintainable, hence liable to be rejected. 4. That, the proposed amendment will definitely change the nature and character of the case and a new case and cause of action will be developed which is not in accordance with law. Hence the petition cannot be allowed by giving opportunity to the objector to fill up the lacuna of the objectors case. 5. That, the proposed amendment as aforesaid that Smrity Kana Dey sold her streedhan such as gold ornament weighing 70 tolas to New Rupbahar Jewelers, 250, Hajari Lane, Kotwali, Chittagong by sale Cont. # 2

(2) receipt dated 03.4.1979, 05.12.1979, 05.06.1990 or she had shares in Burma Eastern Limited. Later on renamed as Padma Oil Company and the share certificate were issued by the company on 21.11.1978 and she also purchased 100 shares of Deys company limited in 1980 or subsequently she purchased more shares their in or all this and others are the streedhan of Smrity Kana Dey, wife of Late Niranjan Dey are all false, concocted, baseless, fabricated and hence denied by the petitioners. 6. That, the present objector filed succession Misc. Case No. 306/05 under section 372 of succession act praying for issuing succession certificate in favour of them. Where in the present petitioner as opposite party filed written objection and contested the case. 7. That, on the other hand the present petitioners filed another succession Misc. Case No. 339/2006 praying for granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioners. In that the case the present objector as opposite party filed written objection and contested the case. 8. That, after contested hearing Ld. court was pleased to pass an order by allowing succession Misc. Case No. 339/06 in one hand and disallowed the succession Misc. Case No. 306/05 on the other hand. 9. That, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by Ld. Judge of District Delegate, the opposite party objector preferred Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2007 against the order passed in succession Misc. Case No. 229/2006 and Misc. Appeal No. 2/07 against the order passed in succession Misc. Case No. 306/05 in the court of Cont. # 3

(3) District Judge, Chittagong. Both the Misc. Appeal were heard analogously by the Ld. court, resulting in passing an order by setting aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2006 passed by the Ld. Judge of District Delegate First court in succession case No. 306/05 with a direction to the court below to give chance to the petitioner to amend the petition according to the provision of section 372 of the succession act. 10. That, after passing the order by the Ld. Appellate court the records of the lower court were send down. After that the objector or opposite party of succession Misc. Case No. 339/06 brought this petition of amendment to amend the written objection which is beyond the findings and decision of the Ld. Court of Appeal which was as follows; The L/C record be sent or remand to the concerned court with a direction that after receiving the record the court below will give a chance to the petitioner to amend his petition according to the provision of section 372 of the succession act 1925. 11. That, it is very much curious that the court of appeal in his order though set aside the order passed by the court below in succession case No. 306/05, yet as per the aforesaid order of the court of appeal the objector as a petitioner of that case might have a chance to amend the petition by introducing the following facts in that petition. But it is very much unfortunate that leaving aside the legal and convenient procedure the cunning objector followed the dubious process under the garb of amendment of the written objection in slip shod manner to create cloud over the legitimate claim of the petitioner which was upheld by the court of appeal. Cont. # 4

(4) 12. That, it is very much unfortunate that after a good lapse of time the objector came ahead to substantiate her illegitimate and illegal claim by producing some forged documents in connivance with the persons related to so called New Rupbahar Jewelers; by way of fabrication of the so called sale receipt of 70 tolas of gold. Classifying the same as the streedhan of Smrity Kana Dey. This sorts of somersaulting character of the objector shows the ill motive and illegal activities to defraud the petitioner from getting the proper relief from the Ld. court of law by misusing and abusing the court process which is very much undesirable. It is pertinent to mintion here that Smrity Kana Dey has or had no such ornament weighting 70 tolas as streedhan which could be sold out to so called New Rupbahar Jewelry or shares of different companies as described in the amendment petition. So for ends of justice and the grounds as stated above amendment petition in question cannot be allowed. Furthermore late Smrity Kana Dey was a mere house wife and she has or had no ability to purchase 70 tolas of gold or 500 shares of Burma Eastern or 100 share of Deys Chamical Company. Her husband Late Niranjan Dey purchased the shares of the aforesaid company in the name of his wife Smrity Kana Dey by his own financial support. So question of streedhan does not arise. That regarding the share of the Deys united supplier Co. Ltd. it is contended that the company was formed by Mr. Niranjan Dey, Smrity Kana Dey was made director of the aforesaid company by her husband. Smrity Kana Dey had no personal source of income. So that she could purchase the share of Cont. # 5

(5) the united suppliers company or Burma Eastern Com. More over the claim of Streedhan as advanced by the present objector was earlier discussed by the learned trial court and question of streedhan can not be heagitated under the garb of amendment. It is here to be mention that Mr. Niranjan Dey and Smirity Kana Dey came from financially and materially very poor families. As such Mrs. Smirity Kana Dey did not acquire any assets from any one as gift or dowry. Mrs. Dey did not create any stridhan at the time of her marriage, bridle procession or any time later on. That Mrs. Dey was a fulltime dependent housewife from the time she married Mr. Dey to the time she took her last breath. This will be revealed from the particulars of her passport. More so Mrs. Dey did not have any employment or any others source of income nor did she involved herself in any activity that could have created wealth exclusive for her through out her conjugal life. This will be reflected by the fact that Mrs. Dey did not have any bank account in her personal name. That there were no monitory transaction involved in the allotment and distribution of shares of the above named companies i.e. Burma Eastern & Deys Chemical Companies Ltd. from the fund of Mrs. Smrity Kana Dey. Mrs. Dey was chosen as joint M.D. of Deys Company by her husband. Her only participation in Deys Ltd. Company was to sign cheques or other documents in the absence or incapacity due to illness of her husband. That the so called or alleged receipts dated 03.04.1979, 05.12.1979, 05.06.1980 of so called New Rupbahar Jewelers are all vogus concocted and fabricated documents. Cont. # 6

(6) 13. Furthermore, there was no reason whatsoever, financially or otherwise, for Mrs. Dey to sell alleged gold ornaments because during the time as mentioned in the alleged sale receipts Mr. Dey was financially sound and solvent to meet any and all financial requirements. Mr. Dey also adequately provided with everything for all conceivable and contingency needs of Mrs. Dey and the family. Hence, the question of selling alleged gold ornaments for whatever reason does not arise. 14. That under the circumstances aforesaid the amendment petition filed by the objector can not be allowed and deserves order of rejection with cost, else the petitioner will be highly prejudiced.

15.

That other ground will be submitted at the time of hearing the petition. Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that your honour will be graciously be pleased to reject the amendment petition filed by the objector for which act of kindness the petitioner as duty bound shall ever pray.

Cont. # 7

(7)

AFFIDAVIT
I, ...................................,

Son

of

.............................

of ................. .............................................Chittagong, Aged about .......... years, by Faith-Hindu, by Occupation-...................., by NationalityBangladeshi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows :1. That, I being petitioner ...................... an well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That, the statements made above are true to my knowledge and belief. VERIFICATION Whatsoever stated above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I have signed this verification on the ..........th day of September 2008 at 10.30 A.M. in the court premises.

Deponent The deponent is known to me and he has signed before me.

Advocate