Law:

Section:

East Pakistan Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance (I of 1964), S. 6 (2)-Each class of suit mentioned in subsection (2) of S. 6 is a suit against and not by a member of a minority commu nity-Interpretation of statutes-Maxim : Noscitur a sociis : a word is known by the company it keeps-Object of Ordinance ---Interpretation of statutes-Intent of Legislature to be seen where literal construction leads to repugnancy to purpose of statute or is unreasonable or more than one interpretation is possible-[Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. A I R 1940 P C 105; The Attorney-Gene ral of Canada v. Hallet Carey Ltd. P L D 1952 P C 29; Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 9th Edn., pp. 63, 332; Special Refer ence No. 1 of 1957 P L D 1957 S C 219; Craies' Treaties on Statute Law, 4th Edn., p. 95; Woking Muslim Mission v. Crown P L D 1956 F C 209; Amiruddin v. West Punjab Province P L D 1956 F C 220; S. A. Haroon v. Collector of Customs, Karachi P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 177; Muhammad Amin Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty P L D 1961 S C 120; Commissioner of Income-tax, East Pakistan v. Hossen Kasam Dada P L D 1961 S C 375 ref. and Government of Pakistan v. Syed Akhlaque Hussain P L D 1965 S C 527 considered]. JUDGMENT M. R. KHAN, J.----The Opposite-Parties 1 to 5 who belong to a minority community have brought Title Suit No. 67 of 1966 in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittagong, for declaration of their title to certain lands and recovery of khas possession thereof on the allegation that the petitioner who is the defendant No. 1 in the suit, in collusion with one Farok Ahmed, trespassed into the lands and has been in wrongful possession of the same. It is alleged in the plaint of the said suit that prior to the institution of that suit, the said Farok Ahmed auction-purchased the suit lands in a certificate sale, but the certificate sale, was set aside as the result of other Suit No. 165 of 1959 brought by 89 of 1960 the present opposite-party No. 1 and the decree setting aside the sale was maintained by the Court of appeal and also by the High Court. It appears from the trial Court's record that the present petitioner as the defendant No. 1 in…