Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Limitation Act, 1908 (Article starts after finishing Sections)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 3

Provides for dismissal of suit barred by limitation—
Article 44— Suit to challenge deed of transfer to be instituted within 3 years of attaining majority—
Suit challenging deed of transfer made during minority shall have to be instituted within 3 (three) years of attaining majority or within 12 years of execution and registration of the deed. Suit instituted beyond the period of limitation is liable to be dismissed. Lai Mrah (Md.) Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain @ Ami 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 24. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 4, 9-18 and 22

The provisions contained in sections 4, 9-18 and 22 of the Limitation Act are applicable in determining the period of limitation prescribed by any special law for filing any suit, appeal or application where such special law does not expressly exclude the applicability of the provisions of these sections of the Limitation Act. The remaining provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply in any proceeding under any special law.
The Appellate Division held that the the appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Election Tribunal before the court of District Judge- which was a wrong forum. Subsequently the District Judge returned the memo of appeal on 06.01.2010 and thereafter on the very next day the appellant filed the same before the Election Appellate Tribunal- the right forum. There is no allegation that the appellant was not bonafide in filing and prosecuting with the appeal in the court of District Judge which had no jurisdiction. So, in the circumstances the time during which the appellant was prosecuting with the appeal before the court of District Judge shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed by the special law i.e. the Local Government (Upazilla Parishad) Ordinance, 2008 for filing the appeal against the judgment of the Election Tribunal as per section 14 of the Limitation Act- the application of which has not been excluded by this special law. Evidently, the High Court Division was not correct in coming to the finding that the Local Government (Upazilla Parishad) Ordinance, 2008 and the Local Government (Upazilla Parishad) Rules, 2008 being special laws and the period of limitation prescribed under section 13(4) of the Ordinance and Rules 65(3) being different from that prescribed in the Limitation Act, any proceeding thereunder is excluded from the operation of section 29(2) read with section 14 or from any other provisions of the Limitation Act, and therefore, the benefit of section 14 or any other provisions of Limitation Act is not available in computing the period of limitation in filing any election tribunal case or election appeal there-from and thus in holding that the election appeal filed before the Election Appellate Tribunal was barred by limitation. Appellate Division makes it clear again that the provisions contained in sections 4, 9-18 and 22 of the Limitation Act are applicable in determining the period of limitation prescribed by any special law for filing any suit, appeal or application where such special law does not expressly exclude the applicability of the provisions of these sections of the Limitation Act. The remaining provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply in any proceeding under any special law.
Abdul Wahab Sheik -Vs- Md. Kamal Hossain Md. Kalam Hossain and others. (Civil) 11 ALR (AD) 100-104 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 4 to 25

The Limitation Act, 1908
Sections 4 to 25
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925
Article III Rule 6 of the Schedule/Rules
Filing the suit for loss or damage to goods– The period of limitation for filing any suit for loss or damage to goods that occurred in the course of carriage, will be one year from the date of delivery of the goods. The well-established principle of law based on this section is that the defendant’s failure to plead the bar of limitation as a defence will not save the suit from being barred by limitation unless any of the provisions mentioned in sections 4 to 25 are applicable.
Hence, we find that the filing of the suit in Singapore on 05.05.2001 beyond the period of one year from the date when the goods were delivered, or at the latest from 05.03.2000 when the joint survey report was published, was barred by limitation. Even if the defendants do not plead the bar of limitation, the court cannot ignore the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act in the absence of the provisions of sections 4 to 25 of the said Act. ...Eximpo Trading Limited =VS= M.V. Banglar Kakoli, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 575] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 5 and 29

In an enactment if the procedure for filing the case and limitation is provided, the provision is taken to be a special law and the court’s discretionary power to extend the period of limitation is excluded in view of section 29 of the Limitation Act. In other words, it may be said that special law is a law which deals with any special law contrary to the general law and in such law the court’s power to exercise its discretion to extend the period of limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been excluded. In such a case, the court is left with no discretion even it finds injustice to a party to extend the period of limitation. A special law is a law dealing with a particular subject enacted for the special cases in the special circumstances as distinguished from the general law which applies generally on the question of limitation though the Limitation Act is a general law.
Md. Motaleb Hossain: -Vs.- Abdul Haque Limon and another: (Criminal) 11 ALR (AD) 105-110 ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

More than one year and nine months was consumed to start a part file and the leave petition was filed out of time by 1340 days. Such gross negligence and inordinate delay on the part of Solicitor Wing should not be condoned otherwise the officers of the Solicitor Wing will be encouraged to be more irresponsible and negligent in their official duties. Government of Bangladesh & ors vs Alauddin & ors 6 BLC (AD) 101. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

There has been a delay of 542 days in filing the revisional application by the appellant. In the background of the provision of law the suit filed by the respondents and decreed by the Courts below was being totally noh-entertainable by the civil Court, the High Court Division was required to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to correct the gross error committed by the Courts below. The High Court Division was not correct in refusing to condone the delay and consequent thereupon in not entertaining the revisional application. Director of Housing and Settlement vs Abdul Majid Howlader and ors 9 BLC (AD) 51. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Satisfactory explanation of delay is the pre-requisite for condoning the delay in filing appeal. Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Rev.) Narayangonj Vs. Dr. Mir Abdul Hakim being dead his heirs Mir Abu Shahid and others 2 MLR (AD) (1997) 231. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Condonation of delay
Government stands on equal footing with ordinary litigants—Inordinate delay caused by gross negligence on the part of Government Law officers—Not condoned.
The petition for leave to appeal filed after 1340 days with a prayer for condonation of delay by the Government of Bangladesh Government stands on the same footing with ordinary litigants. It cannot deserve unlimited latitude in matters of condonation of delay. Though in many cases of the Government, delay is condoned upon sympathetic considerations as the file of the Government moves through different stages and time-consuming procedures. But an inordinate delay of 1340 days arising out of the gross negligence of Government officials cannot be condoned. Appropriate action should be taken against the delinquent officers for their laches and negligence, causing losses to the Government.
It is really surprising to know that more than one year and nine months were consumed to start a part-file and to file the leave petition. This is a gross negligence on the part of the Solicitor Wing, which cannot be condoned.
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Works and others Vs Mr. Alauddin, 21 BLD (AD) 35. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

If an appeal (like the instant appeal) is dismissed on ground of limitation, conflicting decision is likely in the other appeal when decided on merit. Md. Suruzzamal Vs. Bangladesh and another, 13 BLD (AD) 125. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

For admitting a time- barred appeal. the Court first of all is to be satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time- the appellant has to make out a case of sufficient cause by filing an application for condonation of delay.
The practice of admitting a time-barred appeal ‘ subject to objections at the hearing is not surely a sound one and must be discouraged except, in marginal cases. When the delay is long the court must make the exercise under section 5 of the Imitation Act before admitting the appeal with notice to the respondent. Mointazuddin and another Vs. Yakub Ali, 13 BLD (AD) 219. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Petition is barred by limitation of 195 days grounds taken for condonation are that the relevant Ministry asked legal opinion for filing a leave petition and also to get a certified copy of the High Court Division order, that the file was sent to the Attorney General and then to the Additional Attorney General for opinion, that thereafter, it was sent to the solicitor who was pleased to appoint an ‘Advocate-on-Record, that the solicitors office asked the Ministry of Home Affairs for supplying necessary documents and papers, that thereafter necessary fund was sought for etc, — there is no good ground for its condonation—petition dismissed. [Para-2] The Principal Secretary Vs. Mohammad Abdul Baten 2 BLT (AD)-90 ....View Full Judgment

Section 5 read with Article-157

If an appeal against an order of acquittal is filed by the Government either before the High Court Division or the Court of Session beyond the period as provides in Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908, Then in such a case an application seeking condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is very much entertainable if the Court is satisfied with the explanation offered as to how delay occurred, then is quite competent to condone the delay. Dr. M. A. Mazed & Ors Vs. Bangladesh & Ors 12 BLT (AD)-154 ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Condonation of delay
Government stands on equal footing with ordinary litigants—Inordinate delay caused by gross negligence on the part of Government Law officers—Not condoned.
The petition for leave to appeal filed after 1340 days with a prayer for condonation of delay by the Government of Bangladesh Government stands on the same footing with ordinary litigants. It cannot deserve unlimited latitude in matters of condonation of delay. Though in many cases of the Government, delay is condoned upon sympathetic considerations as the file of the Government moves through different stages and time-consuming procedures. But an inordinate delay of 1340 days arising out of the gross negligence of Government officials cannot be condoned. Appropriate action should be taken against the delinquent officers for their laches and negligence, causing losses to the Government.
It is really surprising to know that more than one year and nine months were consumed to start a part-file and to file the leave petition. This is a gross negligence on the part of the Solicitor Wing, which cannot be condoned.
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Works and others Vs Mr. Alauddin, 21 BLD (AD) 35. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

If an appeal (like the instant appeal) is dismissed on ground of limitation, conflicting decision is likely in the other appeal when decided on merit. Md. Suruzzamal Vs. Bangladesh and another, 13 BLD (AD) 125. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

For admitting a time- barred appeal. the Court first of all is to be satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time- the appellant has to make out a case of sufficient cause by filing an application for condonation of delay.
The practice of admitting a time-barred appeal ‘ subject to objections at the hearing is not surely a sound one and must be discouraged except, in marginal cases. When the delay is long the court must make the exercise under section 5 of the Imitation Act before admitting the appeal with notice to the respondent. Mointazuddin and another Vs. Yakub Ali, 13 BLD (AD) 219. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

In the absence of any sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay of an inordinate delay of 1780 days in preferring the criminal appeal by the petitioner the High Court Division rightly rejected the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Abul Hossain vs State 1 BLC (AD) 40. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Condonation of delay is the discretion of the Court—
To condone delay is the discretion of the Court. When the High Court Division in exercise of its discretion condoned the delay of 201 days upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained, the apex court found nothing wrong in it warranting interference therewith. Abul Kalam Azad Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dinajpnr and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 42. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Condonation of delay— Government and Private litigant stand on equal footing— Even then Government deserves some leniency—
Law is well settled that both the private and Government litigant stand on equal footing. Government cannot claim any special privilege in respect of limitation. Delay of every day shall be explained. Since the Government has to take decision through different stages and obtain opinion from different departments it takes more times. When cause of delay is satisfactorily explained, delay can be condoned. Sonar Bangla Service Station Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Works and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 394. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Applicable to an application seeking setting aside abatement— But filing separate application u/s 5 for condonation of delay when the court is satisfied on the materials on record may be waived in exceptional circumstance—
Order 22 rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for substitution of legal heirs of deceased plaintiff/appellant or defendant/ respondent, as the case may be, where the right to sue survives after setting aside abatement. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been made applicable to such case. In certain exceptional circumstances the apex court held that necessity of filing separate application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act may be waived where the court is satisfied on the basis of the materials on record to secure the ends of justice and set aside the abatement and allow substitution based on the principles that the right of a party cannot be defeated by mere technicalities. Hazi Habibur Rahman Vs. Ai/ub All Sawdagar being dead his heirs Most Kamrun Nahar and others 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 14. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Condonation of delay is not applicable to appeal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980—
The Administrative Appellate Tribunal is debarred from entertaining any appeal which is not filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under section 6 (2A) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. As such the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rejected the memorandum of appeal as being one time barred. Since the condonation of delay is not applicable the apex court held the order of rejection perfectly justified. 'Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and others Vs. Md. Waziullah 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 161. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 6, 28 and Article 144

Partition Suit—Minor ousted from possession—His title not extinguished till the lapse of three years after attainment of majority, even though 12 years passed after dispossession—Suit for partition filed after one year of attainment of majority—Suit competent without a prayer for declaration of title—Only ad valorem court-fee is to be paid. Sanjib Kurnar Bose and another Vs. Sved Shainsuddin & anr, IBLD (AD) 311 ....View Full Judgment

Section 12(2)

The Limitation Act provides filing of appeal or any application challenging any decree or order, whatsoever, of the court upon obtaining the certified copy of the same and section 12(2) of the Limitation Act provides that the time consumed in obtaining such copy shall be excluded. In the instant case, it appears that neither there is any statement as to delay or there is any prayer for condonation of delay nor there is any such finding by the court of appeal below. As such it can be safely construed that the application was filed within time. So there was no bar in allowing the application. As such Rule 19 is very much applicable in the present case. Hence we hold that the High Court Division committed error of law in not taking the above facts into consideration and as such came an erroneous finding that the re-admission was made without complying with the provision of law. .....Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Barek Bepari, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 93] ....View Full Judgment

Section 13

Computation of Limitation—Limitation in a suit for specific performance of contract when no date is fixed for the performance — Meaning of the word ‘absent’ in the context of defendant’s non-availability in the country — No time having being fixed for the performance of the contract, time will begin to run when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused — the defendant having refused to file application for permission for registration of the document and having admittedly left for India in 1964, the suit filed in 1969 was prima facie barred by limitation — But when the law allows the period of absence of the defendant from Bangladesh to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation, the plaintiff should not be denied such computation by putting some artificial meaning to the word ‘absent’ merely because the period of his absence may be too long in a particular case. Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Pabna and others Vs. Md. Abdus Sobhan Talukder and another 9 BLD (AD) 173 ....View Full Judgment

Section 14

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 does not make any provision for application of section 14 of the Limitation Act in proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal. Md. Abdus Sukkur Vs Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 17 BLD (AD) 43. ....View Full Judgment

Section 14

Administrative Tribunal Act being a special law if provision of section 14 of the Limitation Act applies. If the time for disposal of the writ petition can be excluded in competition of the period of limitation of six months, from the date or order of termination.
Section 29 of the Act says that the provision in section 4, sections-9- 18 and section 22 shall apply to a case under a special or local law only in so far as, and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Bangladesh Bank & Ors Vs. Mohammad Abdul Mannan 2BLT (AD)-101 ....View Full Judgment

Section 14 and Section-29(2)

read with Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 Second Proviso to Sub-Section-(2) of Section-4
It is clear from the wording of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act that the legislative intendment behind this provision is to exclude the proceedings governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act from the operation of the benefit conferred by subsection (2) of section 29. The petitioner cannot, therefore, the benefit of Section- 14 of the Limitation Act while computing the period of limitation in filing his application before the Administrative Tribunal. Abul Bashar Vs. Investment Corporation of Bangladesh & Ors. 9BLT (AD)-21 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 14 and 29

Exclusion of time in computing time of limitation to file a case — Whether exclusion prescribed under section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable in a case of special law — If a person in good faith prosecutes his legal proceedings in a wrong forum he should be entitled to exclude this period in computing the period of limitation under special law, such as the Wakf Ordinance. In the instant case it cannot be said that the respondent started her proceeding in good faith and consequently she is not entitled to the benefit of section 14 — Wakfs Ordinance, 1962 (I of 1962), Ss. 32 and 33; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), s. 115; Or XLVII R. 7(2) Syed Amir Hossain Vs. Mrs. Nadera Rahman, 5 BLD (AD) 317 ....View Full Judgment

Section 18

Limitation of compensation for wrongful cancellation of the dealership licence Delay was caused in filing the suit as the partners of the firm were scared due to the prevailing lawlessness in the country — When there is fraud there is no question of limitation and it will run from the date when fraud was detected — Appellant has succeeded in establishing that there has been suppression of truth, absence of prior notice before cancellation, non-compliance with the terms of the agreement and malafide on the part of respondent No. I which entitled the appellant to the decree sought for. M/s. Hajee Mohammad Au and sons Vs. Burma Eastern Limited and others, 6BLD (AD)146 ....View Full Judgment

Section 22( 1)

Plea of limitation—When not available
When the petitioner on his own volition added himself as a defendant in the suit 3 years after its institution, it does not lie in his mouth to say that the suit is barred against him under Section 22(1) of the Limitation Act. Mohammad Gazi Miah Vs. Syed Abdur Rouf and others, 15 BLD (AD) 54. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Acquisition of title by adverse possession—
The plaintiffs were never recognised as cosharers of the suit land and on the contrary the defendant had been in the exclusive possession since the time of C.S operation and by continuous possession adversely to the interest of the plaintiff, the defendants have already acquired good and indefeasible title to the suit land and the right title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land has been extinguished by ouster and adverse possession for more than a period of 12 years. Dalimon Nessa Bewa and others Vs. Md. Hashmat AH 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 329. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Acquisition of title by adverse possession for more than twelve years—
The plaintiff-respondent, who embraced Islam, had been in uninterrupted possession of the suit land for more than twelve years and acquired indefeasible title thereto. The suit land was formerly part of their family debater property wherefrom the idol was removed and the property lost its debater character. The High Court Division set aside the judgment and decree of the court of appeal and restored those of the trial court which the apex court upheld. Hari Thakur Deb Bigraha (Sri Sri) and others Vs Md. Abdul Hannan and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 353. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Possession of a cosharer in joint property does not constitute adverse possession against other cosharers—
Amicable arrangement between cosharers is not a partition by metes and bounds—
In a joint property possession of one cosharer is possession of other cosharers. Such possession never becomes adverse against the other cosharers. Amicable arrangement among cosharers is not a partition by metes and bounds. Probir Kumar Rakshit Vs. Abdus Sabur and others 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 10. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Acquisition of title by adverse possession—
When the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his continuous possession in the suit property adversely against all others for more than 12 years before the institution of the suit, his title to the suit property has been held to have been perfected by adverse possession against the defendants. Ka Umuddin (Mir) being dead his heirs Ayesha Khatun @ Chamatkar Bibi and others Vs. Mohammad Dukhi Mondal and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 151. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Suit for recovery of possession of suit land must be instituted within 12 years of dispossession—
The law is well settled that for recovery of possession of the suit land must be instituted within 12 years of dispossession. When the plaintiff fails to prove the date of dispossession and the institution of the suit within 12 years of dispossession, he is not entitled to get the decree. Delwar Hossain Akter (Md.) and another Vs. Md. Nazrul Islam Khan and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 380. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Acquisition of title by adverse possession—
Suit for declaration of title on the basis of fictitious title deeds as well as by adverse possession is not maintainable. In a suit for declaration of title by adverse possession the plaintiff must establish that from certain particular point of time he has been continuously possessing the suit land for over a period of twelve years in assertion of his hostile title denying the title of the real owner openly to the knowledge of all. Sheikh Farid (Md.) and others Vs. Abdul Wadud Sikder and others 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 201. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Section 28 of the Limitation Act has no application to persons who are in possession and who have had no occasion to sue for recovery of possession. Md. Abdul Ban Muktear Vs. Md.Nurul Islam & Ors 12 BLT (AD)126 ....View Full Judgment

Section 28 and Article 144

Adverse possession — It implies that The person against whom adverse possession is exercised is a person who is entitled to demand possession at the moment adverse pos-session begins — A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show that his pos- session was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title — As there is no evidence to show that the plaintiff ever claimed any title by adverse possession against the real owner with whose permission he entered into the suit property, he is not en- titled to any relief on the basis of adverse pos- session. Abdul Kader and others Vs. A.K Noor and others, 5 BLD (AD) 33 ....View Full Judgment

Section 28 and Article 144

Adverse possession — Claim of adverse possession by Tenant — There is no adverse possession where the relationship is that of landlord and tenant — When the tenant continues to stay on the land after the termination of the lease but does so on the terms of the lease and on payment of rent his possession cannot be adverse to the landlord. Narendra Basu Roy and another Vs. Municipal Committee, Mymensingh, 6 BLD (AD) 297 ....View Full Judgment

Section 29(2)

When a special or local law prescribes a period of limitation for filing, suit, appeal or application different from the period prescribed by the First Schedule of the said Act, the Proviso contained in Section 4, Sections 9-18 and Section 22 will apply. Md. Ishaque and others Vs. The Government of Bangladesh, 14 BLD (AD) 39. ....View Full Judgment

Section 158

read with
Arbitration Act,1940(X of 1940)
Section 33
The Appellate Division found that since the award was a nullity and void ab initio and the same has no validity or existence in the eye of law. Similarly the question of limitation of filing of the objection within 30 days as required under section 158 of the Limitation Act is unwarranted and uncalled for because the award being a nullity and void ab-initio and need not be avoided, no question of limitation is applicable.
M/s. Concord Engineers and Construction Ltd -Vs.- The Chief Engineer, Road and Highways Department, Government of the People's Republic Bangladesh, Sarak Bhaban, P.S. Ramna, Dhaka. 4 ALR (AD) 2014 (2) 51 ....View Full Judgment

Article 95

It is Article 95 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act which governs a suit to set aside a decree obtained by fraud or for other relief on the ground of fraud. It provides 3 years from the time when fraud comes known to the party wronged. Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Ramananda Sarker. 9BLT (AD)-30 ....View Full Judgment

Article 95

Limitation — Suit for declaration that auction sale was fraudulent, void and not binding — Period of limitation in such a suit When a plaintiff brings a suit it must be governed by some provisions of the Limitation Act — Whether such a suit is to be brought within three years from the date when the fraud became known to the party wronged The trial Court found that the plaintiff did not bring the suit within three years from the date of knowledge of the sale — The Subordinate Judge held that since the sale was void abilities there could not be any question of limitation — the suit, however, being, as it is, and the facts as found there can be no escape from the bar of limitation even though the auction sale was said to have been tainted with fraud and thus void. Syed Ahmed and others Vs. Abdul Mokarram and others, 7BLD (AD) 166 ....View Full Judgment

Article 113

The payment of compen­sation should reflect the benefit that the recipient would obtain by investing that sum of money had it been paid in due time. There is a general right of performance within a reasonable time. Approximately twenty years have elapsed from 1992 when there was no further impediment in the way of completing the sale. On the basis that money put into long term investment would, more or less, double in five years the seller is entitled to receive taka two crores by way of compen­sation. Mahua Khair vs Amena Begum All Ispahani 17 BLC (AD) 139 ....View Full Judgment

Article 113

Article 113 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act is the proper provision which governs a suit for specific performance of a contract. Under this article the period of limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. It is nobody’s case that any date was fixed for performance. [Para-7] A. D. C. Wested Property) Vs. Md. Serajul Islam & Ors. 6 BLT (AD)-132 ....View Full Judgment

Article 113

Article 113 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act is the proper provision which governs a suit for specific performance of a contract. Under this article the period of limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. It is nobody’s case that any date was fixed for performance, A.D. C. (Vested Properly) Vs. Md. Serajul Islam & Ors. 6BLT (AD)-132 ....View Full Judgment

Article 113

Limitation — Limitation in a suit for specific performance of contract — When it will start — Whether limitation will run from the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice by the plaintiff to the defendant to perform the contract after obtaining necessary permission for execution and registration of the sale deed or from the expiry of the Ordinance putting embargo on execution and registration of the sale deed with permission — Upon true construction of the relevant clause of the agree ment it would appear that the plaintiff could ask for the deed amicably or through Court both after the expiry of the Ordinance, and during the continuance of the Ordinance upon fulfilling conditions therefor — Finding as to limitation that the suit was filed within three years from the expiry of the Ordinance is justified — Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1964(1 of 1964), S.4. Rustam Dhali and others Vs. Sekander Dhali and others, 7 BLD(AD151 ....View Full Judgment

Articles 114 and 139

Adverse possession must be notorious open and hostile and within the knowledge of the land owner .
The Appellate Division found that the High Court Division came to a finding that a period of 12 years must have elapsed to acquire right on the basis of adverse possession and such possession must be notorious open and hostile and within the knowledge of the land owner and that the petitioners miserably failed to prove so, and as such Appellate Division dismissed both the petitions.
Md. Motiar Rahman Khan being dead his heirs: (1). Md. Rabiul Anam and others. -Vs.- Md. Abdul Aziz Khan and others. (Civil) 8 ALR (AD) 191-193 ....View Full Judgment

Article 120

The plaintiff prayed for declaration of title stating that his cause for seeking such relief arose on 27-10-1969. The suit was filed on 3-9-1976. The relief so sought was barred in view of the provision of Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The other relief, that is relief b(l) was also barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. A Abu Naser Md Wahidun Nabi vs Balai Roy 10 BLC (AD) 58. ....View Full Judgment

Article 120

The Limitation Act does not specifically provide for any particular period of limitation in filing suits by a Muslim for arrears of maintenance although Articles 128 and 129 of the first schedule provide for a period of 12 years each by a Hindu for arrears of maintenance and for a declaration Of his right to maintenance and the time for which period begins to run is when the arrears are payable. No such corresponding provisions exist in respect of suit filed by a Muslim for a corresponding relief. Residuary Article 120, providing for a period of limitation of 6 years from the time when the right to sue accrues in respect of a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the first schedule, will be applicable to a suit for maintenance under ordinance of 1985. [Para-23] Jamila Khatoon Vs. Rustom Ali 4 BLT (AD)-97 ....View Full Judgment

Article 120

Limitation — Question of limitation in a suit seeking declaration that the proceedings under section 92 of the S.A.T.Act was void — Since no notice was issued by the Revenue Officer under sub-section 3 of section 92 of the S,A.T.Act inviting any objection against the taking over of the holding as abandoned’ holding, the period of limitation prescribed in that section will not be applicable — The suit attracts the general provisions of the Limitation Act under Article 120 of the Limitation Act — State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951), S.92 (4). Province of East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh) Vs. Sailesh Chandra Bhattacharya, 4 BLD (AD) 295 ....View Full Judgment

Article 120

Limitation—Bar of—Limitation commenced to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued — Since the plaintiff did not file the suit within six years from the date when the impugned notification was issued. the suit is clearly barred by limitation. M/s. Jute Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Khana Rani Githa and others, 5BLD (AD)218 ....View Full Judgment

Article 134

The High Court Division also held that since the transactions are vitiated by fraud, the suit would be governed by Article 134 of the Limitation Act and the starting point of limitation would be 12 years from the date when the transfer became known to the present plaintiff. Parveen Sultana vs Sahera Khatun 12 BLC (AD) 175. ....View Full Judgment

Article 142

Adverse possession—In the instant case in their pleading the Mahaluxmi bank did not raise the plea of their acquiring title by adverse possession and so no issue was framed regarding acquiring of title of the bank in the suit land by their adverse possession. However, since the defendant No. 1 asserted that they acquired title also by adverse possession, issue No. 6 was framed regarding the acquiring of title by the defendant No. 1 on the basis of adverse possession. Even if the bank proves possession over period of 12 years, they will not succeed if the title remained with the defendant No. 1. Ruhul Amin vs Official Liquidator, Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd U BLC (AD) 1 ....View Full Judgment

Article 142

It appears that the right of adverse possession cannot stand since the defendant claims that he took settlement of the land from his landlord but on his failure to prove his such claim he cannot raise the alternative plea. Jamira Khatun vs Fazlul Karim 15 BLC (AD) 236. ....View Full Judgment

Article 142

The suit is governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act and as such there has been miscarriage of justice. The High Court Division it appears exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below specially the appellate Court which is final Court of fact when there was no misreading and non-reading of the material evidence on record and mis-construction of the documents. There is also legal infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. We are of the view that the High Court Division was not justified in making the Rule absolute and the same accordingly requires interference by us. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. .....Sufia Begum =VS= Md. Tariqul Alam, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 428] ....View Full Judgment

Article 142

Onus to prove possession - followed by dispossession — Where neither the High Court Division nor the lower appellate Court found paintiff out of possession in the suit land be- fore institution of the suit the question of discharging such onus by the plaintiff is not relevant. Akhtar Hossain Shariff and others Vs. Munshi Akkas Hossain and others, 3BLD (AD) 334 ....View Full Judgment

Article 143

In the instant case it is apparent that plaintiffs claim of redemption did not become barred by limitation during the period as mentioned in Article 4 of the Order. The plaintiffs' right to file suit seeking redemption became timebarred on 26-12-1988. In that state of the matter the contention of the learned Advocate of the plaintiff-petitioners that plaintiffs' suit was not barred by limitation since he would get one year more from 26-12-1988 and thus the period for filing the suit seeking redemption was to expire in December, 1989 but the suit having been filed on 27th September, 1989 the same was not barred by limitation legally not well founded and sustainable. The High Court Division was not in error in holding that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation. Guljan Bibi vs Md Fazlu Miah 12 BLC (AD) 18. ....View Full Judgment

Article 144

It is a cardinal principle of law that the plaintiff has to prove his case independent of the weakness or defects of defendant's case. Even if a foreign judgment is-admissible in evidence, it does not improve the plaintiff's case as he has hopelessly failed to prove the alleged agreement for exchange with Ghosh brothers and the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation as he had been out of possession for long 20 years from 1949 to 1969. Moksed Ali Mondal vs Abdus Samad Modal 9 BLC (AD) 220. ....View Full Judgment

Article 144

The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record held that the plaintiff has been able to prove his continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession in the suit land for over 12 years and accordingly, held that good and infeasible title by adverse possession has accrued in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, made the Rule absolute. Hari Thakur Deb Bigraha vs Md Abdul Hannan 13 BLC (AD) 38. ....View Full Judgment

Article 144

It appears from the record that there is no sufficient pleading in support of plaintiff's claim of adverse possession in the suit land and there is also no legal evidence as well in support of plaintiff's claim. To enable a plaintiff to acquire title by adverse possession, his possessions must be of actual, open, notorious and hostile character as to amount to ouster of exclusion of the real owner. The plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his title in the suit lands. PW 1 stated that he got decree in Title Suit No.62 of 1997. The decree was executable but admit­tedly he failed to execute the decree and thus, the decree was rendered infructuous after expiry of three years of the date of passing the decree. Moreso, no right or title is conferred on the plaintiff on the strength of the said decree the suit land having been declared enemy property any other decree except that the suit land is not an enemy property was of no avail. Md Ali Bepary vs Garupranjan Chakraborty 14 BLC (AD) 97 ....View Full Judgment

Article 144

Adverse possession — Question of giving the benefit of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff when the plea of adverse possession can be taken by the defendant in a suit — The plaintiffs claim is against the real owner on the basis of a bainapatra and they were possessing the land for more than the statutory period adversely against him and have perfected their title by such possession against him and not against the defendnats — Plaintiffs have not derived title against the defendant by adverse possession but against the real owner — The defendant cannot plead point of limitation as the defendant was not in physical possession — Though the plaintiffs could not prove their bainapatra their physical possession had tilted in their favour against the true owner and the suit was therefore rightly decreed. — Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877), S. 42.Md Ashraf Au and another Vs. Fatique Chandra Saha and others, 3 BLD (AD) 315 ....View Full Judgment

Article 144

Adverse possession Tenant’s right to claim adverse possession — Plaintiff and her husband were tenants of the suit premises since 1947 and after 1953 they paid rent to the Evacuee Management Committee and thereafter to the Custodian of Enemy Property Her possession is therefore legal possession which can be termed as juridical possession — When the Custodian, Enemy Property released the property on the ground that the same is not enemy property he could not direct her to release the property to a particular individual whose title is denied by the owner. As against such person who claims to be part- owner of the property, plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession is valid in law. Mst. Aftabunnessa Vs. Md. Shamsul Huq Talukder, 4BLD (AD) 273 ....View Full Judgment

Article 144

Adverse possession against co-sharer — Sole possession is not exclusive or adverse possession — Possession of a co-owner becomes adverse to other co-owners from the moment when there is an ouster and exclusion
— A thin veneer of adverse possession or semblance of it viewed from a dsitance would not be sufficient for the defendants to succeed without discharging their heavy onus —They have to do prove that their possession was so open and hostile to the knowledge of all that the plaintiff must have known to the notorious fact that the plea of adverse possession is being raised up — Mere non-payment of rent and even non-sharing of profit would not justify a case of adverse possession — Nothing emerged from the facts of the case which ought to have put the plaintiffs on their guard and no signs were apparent to put the plaintiffs on the notice of adverse possession. Hazera Begum and others Vs. Roushan Ara Begum and others, 7BLD(AD)38 ....View Full Judgment

Article 148

Limitation for redemption suit is 60 years—
P.O. No. 12 of 1972—
Article 4— Does not apply to cases which did not become barred during the period from 1st March 1971 to 1st March 1972—
Except where the claim or right to initiate legal proceedings becomes barred during the period from 1st March 1971 to 1st March 1972, such claim or right to initiate legal proceedings are not saved under article 4 of P.O. No. 12 of 1972. The instant redemption suit not falling within the said category the period as aforesaid can not be excluded from the computation of the limitation. Guljan Bibi (Most) and others Vs. Md. Fazlu Miah and others 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 112. ....View Full Judgment

Article 148

60 years limitation for the mortgagor to bring a suit to recover possession from the mortgagee when the right so accrued.
The Appellate Division held’s that the present suit for redemption was filed under the above quoted provision of law. The limitation for such suit is 60 years as per Article 148 of the Limitation Act. This suit, therefor, is well within the statutory period of limitation. .....Khanje Ali Sikder =VS= Hazi Mozaharuddin & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 51] ....View Full Judgment

Article 148

The suit for redemption of mortgage was not maintainable in law– The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land, rather it is defendant Nos.14-20 who are in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the suit for redemption of mortgage was not maintainable in law. The trial Court on misconception and misreading of the case as well as the provision of article 148 of the Limitation Act held that the suit was maintainable. The crucial fact to be decided in the suit was whether the mortgagor returned back the money to the mortgagee within 5(five) years as stipulated in the deed of reconveyance or not, but the plaintiffs failed to prove the said fact and thus after the expiry of the said period of 5(five) years the transaction became a past closed one. But the trial Court and the High Court Division failed to consider the said fact. We find merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is allowed. ...Golzar Hossain =VS= Abdul Kadir, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 74] ....View Full Judgment

Section 148

The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and both the courts below found that a suit for redemption of mortgage is maintainable and the same having been filed within 60 years from the accrual of the cause of action the suit was not barred by limitation. The learned Single Judge wrongly held that the suit for redemption is barred by limitation. A reference to Article 148 of the Limitation Act clearly shows that the limitation of filing such a suit is 60 years and as such the learned single Judge wrongly held that the suit was barred by limitation. Asmat Ali Vs. Abdur Rafique Mridha & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-12 ....View Full Judgment

Article 148

Usufructuary mortgage — Limitation for redemption — Period for which mortgage can be entered into is not to be confused with the period of limitation for redemption. The maximum period for which a usufructuary mortgage can be entered into was fifteen years under section 95 of the State-Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. But by Ordinance No. XXI of 1961 section 95 was amended and thereby the maximum period of usufructuary mortgage was reduced to seven years. Unless earlier redeemed by repayment of the consideration a mortgagor acquires the right to redemption on the expiry of the maximum period of seven years, and if the mortgagee does not voluntarily restore possession of the land to the mortgagors, the latter may file a suit within a period of 60 years from the date of accrual of his right of redemption. Moulvi Abu Bakkar Vs. Nazir Ahmed, 2 BLD (AD) 151 ....View Full Judgment

Article 149

In a suit for declaration of title by way of adverse possession the plaintiffs claim that they have been possessing the suit land for 86/87 years by constructing houses thereon and the Court of appeal below which is the final court of fact found on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land and the High Court Division also found that there was no error occasioning failure of justice in the impugned judgment for which no interference is called for. Government of Bangladesh represented by DC, Rajshahi vs Zahura Bewa and others 10 BLC (AD) 150. ....View Full Judgment

Article 152

The limitation for filing an appeal before the District Judge is 30 days from the date of the Decree. Momtazuddin and another Vs. Yakub All, 13 BLD (AD) 219. ....View Full Judgment

Article 152

Partition decree — Execution — Limitation runs from the date when the hnal decree is engrossed on stamped paper and signed by the Judge. A decree, before it is prepared, drawn and sighed according to law, cannot be put into execution. The decree cannot be drown except on a requisite stamped paper, but as there is no law compelling a person interested in the decree to supply for the stamp paper within a particular period of time nor any provision to cancel or set aside the decree or dismiss the suit on this ground, the drawing of the decree may be delayed beyond the period of limitation for its execution. In such circumstances limitation will start from the date the decree is drawn and signed or it becomes executable. Aminullah Bhuiyan and others Vs. Abdul Hafiz and others, 1 BLD(AD)210. ....View Full Judgment

article 157

Applicability of article 157— as to the limitation against acquittal in case started on police report—
In case of appeal against acquittal in a complaint case the limitation is 60 days as provided under section 417(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But in case of appeal against acquittal in a case initiated on police report the limitation is 6 months under article 157 of the Limitation Act. Dr. M.A. Mazed and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by Solicitor, 9 MLR (2004) (AD) 164 ....View Full Judgment

Article 164

Limitation for filing application for setting aside exparte decree is 30 days from the date of decree or from the date of knowledge-High Court Division while exercising revisional power under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not sit as a court of appeal on the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court. Summons upon the defendants shall be served at the address where they ordinarily reside as required under Order 5 rule 17 C.P.C. Exparte decree can well be setaside on the ground of non-service of summons upon an applicatin under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge thereof as provided under article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Ful Meher Bibi being dead her heirs Sabura Khatiin and others Vs. Abdid Wahab and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 411. ....View Full Judgment

Article 164

The application order 9 rule 13 of the Code o Civil Procedure was not barred by limitation in the facts of this case as limitation is to be counted from the date of knowledge o defendant No. 8 under Article 164 of the Limitation Act as the summons was not duly served upon her. Ful Meher Bibi being dead her heirs Savura Khatun & Ors. Vs. Abdul Wahab & Ors. 13 BLT (AD)184 ....View Full Judgment

Article 173

In a money suit by Rupali Bank against a Private Ltd. company and its Directors defendants, names of Director-defendants being struck off at their instance and their transferees being impleaded subsequently in presence of Banks representative, plaintiff-Bank without seeking any remedy within 10 months and without giving any explanation of delay filed a review petition which was rejected and against which in plaintiff Bank preferred revisional application which was also rejected on ground of limitation — No illegality done plaintiff directed to take action against its own wrong doers.
The order of the trial court striking off the names of the defendants guarantors is improper, but as it was passed in presence of the Banks representative and no action was taken in time by seeking remedy from the superior Court, the petition for correction of the order, being delayed, was legally rejected. The petitioner Bank should take action against the wrong doer. [Paras-3 & 4] Rupali Bank Vs. Tobacco Industry Ltd and others 1 BLT (AD)-33 ....View Full Judgment

Article 181

A preliminary decree for sale of mortgaged property can be enforced only by applying for an order for a final decree in accordance with Order XXXIV, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the limitation for such application will be governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act. Rupali Bank Ltd, Dhaka vs Brick Linkers Ltd 16 BLC (AD) 107. ....View Full Judgment

Articles 181 and 182

Application for restitution—Application for restitution is not an application for. execution of a decree but an independent application governed by Article 181 and not Article 182 of the Limitation Act.
An application for restitution is an independent application, no matter its object is the recovery of the fruit of a decree passed earlier but subsequently reversed. Application for restitution is an application for which no limitation has been specifically provided for in the law and as such it attracts the residuary provision of Article 181. A restitution application is not an application for execution of a decree and as such it is not governed by Article 182 but it is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act. Shamuj Ali and others Vs. Kamalarama Bibi and others, 1BLD (AD) 131 ....View Full Judgment

Article 181

Right to apply for restitution--Right to apply for restitution accrues under Article 181 from the date of the final decree when appeal is preferred from appellate decree of reversal and not from the date of the decree of the first appellate Court reversing the decre of the trial Court.
In a case where second appeal is filed challenging the decree of reversal of the first appellate Court and restitution takes place during pendency of second appeal, the restitution may be set at naught by the reversal of the decree in the second appeal and possession of the property will change hands once again. When appeal is the extension of the original cause there is no reason why the “right to apply “should not be taken to accrue on the date of the final decree of the appellateCourt if appeal is preferred from the decree of reversal of the first appellate Court. Shamuj Au and others Vs. Kamakirina Bibi and others, 1 BLD (AD)131 ....View Full Judgment

Article 181

Limitation — Period of limitation for filing a revisional application — Whether Article 18 I of the Limitation Act will apply — Courts power to revise an order suo motu is not restricted by any time limit — But a revisional application is to be filed within the period of 90 days — The High Court Division may in its discretion entertain an application beyond that period ir there is no negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner. — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), s. 115. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Kobad Au and others, 7 BLD (AD) 268 ....View Full Judgment

Article 181

Reasonable—Application under Article 181 is restricted to applications under. the Code of Civil Procedure and that the application for rectification of a Share-Register under section 38 of the Companies Act,1913,is left to be governed by the general principle that it shall be filed within a reasonable time and not after inordinate delay. What is reasonable time or an inordinate delay is left to be determined by the Court on consideration of facts and circumstances of a particular case. Tamizul Haque and another Vs. Shamsul Haque and others, 11BLD(AD)176 ....View Full Judgment

Article 182(3) and (5)

Applicability of article 182(3) to execution proceedings—
Limitation for execution of decree is three years. Execution case filed within the period of limitation can well be continued after disposal of appeal and the dismissal of review. Article 182(5) is applicable when the decree is altered or modified in revision. But when revision is dismissed article 182(3) of the Limitation Act, 1908 shall be applicable and as such the pending Execution case can well be continued. Kazi Shamsul Huq and others Vs. Rebei/a Begum and others II MLR (2006) (AD) 399. ....View Full Judgment

Article 182(3) & Article 182(5)

We are or opinion that either the decree holder or the judgment debtor could inform the executing court regarding modification of the trial courts decree by the appellate court of the Executing Court could suo motu proceed with the pending Execution case No. 18 of 980 as the same did not become time barred. We are also of the view that in the instant case the provisions laid down in Article 182(3) of the Limitation Act providing for three years time after passing final order in the review application shall apply and the Provision of Article 182(5)of the Limitation Act is not applicable. Kazi Sahamsul Huq & Ors Vs. Robeya Begum & Ors 15 BLT (AD) 79. ....View Full Judgment

Barred by limitation–
It is crystal clear that the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their title to the suit land. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.63 of 1954 for declaration of title in respect of the suit land which was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.64 of 1957 before the learned District Judge, Sylhet, which was also dismissed. Therefore, it appears that instant Title Suit No.112 of 1972 filed by the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation. .....Israil Kha & others =VS= Syed Anwar Hossain & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 277] ....View Full Judgment