perusal of the inquity report it is found that show cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner and the petitioner gave his reply and submitted suppprtive documents and observing. all legal Yormalities finally his licenec was cancelled by the respondent No.l. Muslim Manfiages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974 has amended as sapfers feare 6 errr (Frew) afer, R008" (in short, the Rules, 2009). As per Rule 20 of the Rules, 2009 it is} clear that no Nikah Registrar can work or taken any employment outside his area. 7. For proper apprecfation Rule 20 of the wise sea FH, acre ae cored) mEpT Tes wat omens ore Bae sonfacaa =” It appears from Rulg 20 of the Rules, 2009 that no Nikah Repistrar can take any ‘employment after appointment as Nikah Registrar outside his 4rea. But in the present case the petitioner Violated Rule 20 of Rules, 2009. Not only} that inquiry was held for determining the f4ct whether allegation against the petitione} was true or false, though the petitioner | appeared before the inquiry committee but|he totally suppressed the fact. Nowhere inthe writ petition, he mentioned that inquiry was held and report was against him. He gnly mentioned in the writ petition that there|was a report but what is the report he did not] mentioned. fof the case we find) that the petitioner is guilty for suppression of fact. On the other 8. Considering the i and circumstances hand the employment as a Teagher of the Madrasha outside his area afiet geiting licence as Nikah Registrar and kept all documents in the custody of othef person. It is also violation of the relevayt law. We do not find any merit in the Rule, |We find substance in the submission of fhe learned Deputy Attorney General for respondent No.1. 9. In the result, the Riile is discharged. The order of stay granted at the time of issuance of the Rule on 22.03.2010 is hereby vacated. 10, There is no order 4s to costs. 2016 (XXIV) BLT (HCD) 140 High Court Division (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Present: Mr. Justice A.F.M. Abdur Rahman, ADMIRALTY NO.12 OF 2015 «Plaintiff ‘New Camp Shipping Ltd. -Versus- M.Y. OCEAN GALAXI (IMO No.8418227) alias M/V EAST BRAVE and others Defendants, Mr. Mohammod Hossain, Advocate ..For the defendant No.3 applicant Mr. Mahdin Chowdhury, Advocate For the plaintiff-opposite party24BLTUHCD) 2016, Mr. Abdul Nashar Azad, Advocate For added defendant No.12 Heard & Judgment On : The 22“! November, 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VI rule T1(a)(d) read with Admiralty Court Act, 2000 (Act NoLXIIT of 2000) Section 3(2\(Ka) Held; 1 appears that the instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for declaration. as to the title of the defendant No.1 vessel M.V, OCEAN GALAXI. But it appears that from the documents filed by the defendant No.l that the said vessel was subject of judicial sale by the Nampho Maritime Court of North Korea, wherein the title to the defendant No.l vessel was ascertain, whereupon the defendant No.l vessel was sold to the subsequent auction purchaser, where after the defendant No.3 ultimately obtained the title and possession of the vessel in Bangladesh. Therefore, this court finds that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to institute the instant suit for which the plaint is liable to be rejected. {Para.9] JUPEMENT Mr. A.R.M. Abdur Rahman, J: By this application the defendant No.3 applicant Mr Sekandar Hossain, proprietor of M/S. K. R. Steel, South Shitalpur, Sitakunda, Chittagong, Bangladesh, prayed for rejection of the plaint con the ground stated therein, 2. Wt has been asserted in the instant application that the plaintiff opposite party instituted the instant suit praying for a decree of declaration of ownership entitled over the defendant No.1 vessel M.V. OCEAN GALAXI (IMO No.8418227) alias MIV EAST BRAVE and the suit is now pending. But the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit since the ‘New Camp Shipping Lid. Vs. M.V. OCEAN GALAXI& Ors (4.F.M. Abdur Raman) 141 defendant No.1 vessel M.V. OOCEAN GALAXI_ (IMO. No.8418227) alias. M/V EAST BRAVE was earlier arrested by the Nampho Maritime Court of North Korea due to a cargo claim wherein the instant plaintiff being the alleged owner of the vessel M.V. OCEAN GALAXI appeared in the said suit and failed to vacate the order of arrest, Thereafter, the defendant No.1 vessel, the vessel M.V. OCEAN GALAXI. was subjected to judicial sale and one K. Brothers Marine Co. Ltd. purchased the defendant No.1 vessel on auction and obtained of sale, executed by the Nampho Maritime Court. The new owner thereafter got the vessel registered in its name in Mongolia as M/V EAST BRAVE. ‘The said new owner K. Brothers Marine Co. Ltd., thereafter sold the defendant No.1 vessel to Messer’s Rossmere International imited who subsequently sold the defendant No.1 vessel M.V. OCEAN GALAXI to Angelina Shipping Inc. which further sold the defendant No.1 vessel as a serape vessel, to M/S K.R. Steel a proprietary concern of the defendant No.3 Mr. Sekandar Hossain, by dint of Memorandum of Agreement dated 1th January, 2015. 2A. Ithas been further asserted in the instant application that the defendant No.3 applicant opened L/C pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11.01.2015. On 4" February, 2015. upon which the defendant No.1 vessel arrived at the outer anchorage of Chittagong on 13.02.2015. The seller upon receiving the L/C amount handed over the physical possession of the defendant No.1 vessel to the defendant No.3. Thereafter upon observance of all port formalities, the Chittagong Port Authority on 18,02.201Now Camp Si issued permission to beach the defendant No.1 vessel for scarping purpose, so also the Customs Authority on 19.02.215 permitted as such, upon receiving all duties and taxes to that extent of beaching the defendant No.1 vessel. On 28" February, 2015 the defendant No.! vessel was beached at the Shipyard, owned by the defendant No.3 at North Salimpur, Jafrabad, — Sitakunda, Chitagong. upon which the scrapping of the defendant No.1 vessel commenced. 3. It has categorically asserted further that all these facts have been suppressed and had these facts were disclosed that this court would find that the plaintiff has got no cause of action in instituting the instant suit and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected 4. The leamed Advocate Mr. Mohammod Hossain, appearing on behalf of the defendant No.3 applicant, submits that the plaintiff has got no cause of action in instituting the instant suit since the defendant No.1 vessel. M.V. OCEAN GALAXI subjected to a judicial sale and their the right title of the defendant No.1 vessel] M.V. OCEAN GALAXI has been decided in the said suit. The plaintiff has got no right title in the defendant No.1 vessel as it has failed to establish the same in the said suit, adjudicated before the Nampho Maritime Court of North Korea. The plaintiff upon suppressing all those facts instituted the instant suit and therefore the plaintiff having no cause of action to institute the instant suit, the plaint is liable to be rejected 3. On the other hand the learned Advocate, Mr. Mahdin Choudhury, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite pany, although did not prefer any written objection Lid V5. MLV. OCEAN GALAX! 201 against the application for rejection of the plaint. nevertheless submits that the plaintiff did not know whereabouts of the defendant No.1 vessel M.V. OCEAN GALAXI and only came to know from the written statement filed by the defendant Nol that there is a judicial sale in Korea and that country, North Korea not being a sophisticated country of law as recognized by the International Community, the plaintiff was not appraised with the filling of the said suit in the said court in North Korea and therefore when the plaintiff came to know about the whereabouts of | the defendants No.1 vessel in Bangladesh, it filed the instant suit with a firm believe that law has ity own impartial motion in Bangkidesh, 6. The learned Advocate Mr. Mahdin Choudhury contends that there is no reason for the plaintiff to suppress any fact regarding the defendant No.1 vessel, what it does not know. The learned Advocate Mr. Mahdin Choudhury prays for rejection of the instant application. 7. The learned Advocate Mr. Abul Nashar Azad appearing on behalf of the added defendant No.12 submits that the added defendant No.12 being the mortgagee of the defendant No.1 vessel did not know about the institution of the instant suit in North Korea and also not served with any notice of the said suit. Therefore the mortgagee is cemtitled to the possession of the suit property but since the mortgagee is a added defendant No.12 in the instant suit, it will take appropriate step in proper form. 8. We have heard the learned Advocates and perused the materials on record. 9. It appears that the instant suit has been24BLTHCD) 2016 Ma, Shahjahan Khan Vs, Executive Magistrate & Ors | (Me filed by the plaintiff praying for declaration as to the title of the defendant No.1 vessel M.V. OCEAN GALAXL. But it appears that from the documents filed by the defendant No.1 that the said vessel was subject of judicial sale by the Nampho Maritime Court of North Korea, wherein the title to the defendant No.l vessel was ascertain, whereupon the defendant No.1 vessel was sold to the subsequent auction purchaser, where after the defendant No.3 ultimately obtained the title and possession of the vessel in Bangladesh. Therefore. this court finds that there is no cause of a favour of the plaintiff to institute th suit for which the plaint is liable to be rejected. 10, Further it appears that although the learned Advocate Mr. Mahdin Choudhury does not admit that there had been a suit adjudicated in North Korea, yet as it reveled thatthe defendant No.1 vessel M.V. OCEAN GALAXI has been sold in the said suit in North Korea, the plaintiff is entitled to the sale proceed in North Korea for which. it may take step in that suit before Nampho Maritime Court in North Korea. 11, Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. 12. The plaint in the instant Admiralty Suit No. 12 of 2015 is hereby rejected. 13. However, there shall be no order as to cost. rdadul Hu 2016 (XXIV) BLT (HCD) 143 Mohammad Shahjah: Khan Fishing Net Ind Khan, proprietor of tries ss»Petitioner -Veksus- Executive Magistrate.|Munshigonj and others Respondents, Mr. Md. Mohammod Hossain, .s«.For the Petitioner Advocate Mr. Mahbuay Alam, General with Mr. Md. Alam, DAG ‘Article 102 Whether an Executive Magi to puta factory under sealed Jock and key Held; Evidently the pows Section 5(2\(b) read with