Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 8 & 11

Valuation for the purpose of court’s jurisdiction in a partition Suit where plaintiff is in possession is determinable by the value of the plaintiffs share in the entire property.
[Held by the majority, accepting AR Cornelius, CJ, disagreeing.] In a suit for partition of joint property by a person, claiming to be in joint possession, the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction is determined by the value of the share of the plaintiff in the property and not by the value of the whole property.
In a suit for partition, where the plaintiff is excluded from possession, the plaintiff has to pay ad-valorem court-fees on the market value of the share claimed by him and that value also determines the forum of the trial or appeal. It is difficult to appreciate why in a case for partition, where the plaintiff is in joint possession he must be given the benefit of having his suit tried or his appeal heard by a higher tribunal by valuing his suit according to the value of the entire property sought to be partitioned.
Ajizuddin V. Rahman Fakir (1961)13 DLR SC) 191. ....View Full Judgment

Section 11

(Per Cornelius, CJ)—As the point of valuation for purpose of jurisdiction was not taken in the Court of first instance, under s. 11 of the SV Act no omission on the ground of over-valuation or under valuation should have been entertained by the appellate Court, i.e. the High Court, even if that Court were of the opinion that ‘the over-valuation or under-valuation thereof has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits”. Azizuddin Vs. Rahman Fakir. (1961) 13 DLR (SC) 191. ....View Full Judgment

Section 11

Supreme Court
Appeal to the Supreme Court competent, being an order against the Collector even though a departmental appeals, against the Collector’s order, has already been preferred and disposed of by the Board of Revenue. Messers S. A. Haroon Vs. Collector of Customs, Karachi (1967) 19 DLR (SC) 472. ....View Full Judgment

Section 11

—Person appearing before the Supreme Court being an advocate has to make submission in English language. Shamsuddin Ahmed Vs. Registrar, High Court of E. Pak. (1967) 19 DLR (SC) 483. ....View Full Judgment

Section 11

—Question of fact—Interference by the Supreme Court on question of fact is permissible not only when apparent blunder or error committed by lower Court but also when the finding is patently absurd and also it is physically impossible.
The Privy Council itself recognized that it would not hesitate to review the evidence in spite of a concurrent finding of the Courts below if “it be shown with absolute clearness that some blunder or error is apparent in the way in which the learned Judges below have dealt with the facts” or “if there had been any principle of evidence not properly applied.” But this at best is a rule of practice only which has gradually developed as a result of the decisions of the Board which are merely illustrative and by no means exhaustive. Federation of Pakistan Vs. Ali Ihsan (1967) 19 DLR (SC) 251. ....View Full Judgment

—Appeal to the Supreme Court— Point involving inquiry into facts cannot generally be allowed to be raised for the 1st time.
Points involving inquiry into facts or as to which there could have been an answer on facts, if they were raised in the trial Court, cannot in the absence of strong reasons justifying such a course, be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal.
Whether both parties were ignorant of the law on a particular date is a question of fact which could only be decided after an investigation and there was no good ground for its being allowed to be raised as an additional ground of appeal.
Haji Abdullah Khaiz Vs. Niso Mohammad Khan (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 481. ....View Full Judgment

—Appeal by special leave to Supreme Court— Maintainability of objection—Objection not mentioned in the concise statement cannot be raised for the first time at the time of argument. Taj Din Vs. Mrs. Razia Begum (1973) 25 DLR (SC) 13 ....View Full Judgment

Concurrent finding of fact—When it does and when does not interfere.
The Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in civil matters, unless that finding is shown to be based on no evidence or upon mis-reading of the evidence. No such error has been pointed out to us. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the finding as to the incomplete nature of the gift was open to any challenge at this stage. Abdullah Vs. Abdul Karim (1968) 20 DLR (SC) 205. ....View Full Judgment

—Reversal of findings of fact. Supreme Court sets aside findings of fact arrived at by the High Court.
The High Court in setting aside the finding with regard to collusion arrived at by the Trial Court has not taken into account the following circumstances: It has not considered the finding by the Trial Court that it could not be believed that the defendant No. 1 would allow a property worth Rs. 15,000/- to be sold for Rs. 3,700/- for his failure to pay the paltry sum of Rs. 300/-which was due on account of municipal Lax. The Trial Court observed that “the PWs appeared to be more reliable than the DWs and I accept the evidence of PWs that the defendant No. 1 is still in possession and the defendant No. 4 has no possession”. This finding has also been reversed without giving any cogent reasons thereof. Regard being had to these facts we are unable to sustain the finding of the High Court. Tripura Modern Bank Ltd. Vs. Khan Bahadur Khalilur Rahman (1973) 25 DLR (SC) 34. ....View Full Judgment

Supreme Court’s decision—Binding on all courts, including the High Courts.
It is necessary to point out to the learned Judges of the High Court the constitutional duty that any decision of the Supreme Court shall to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law is binding on all other Courts in Pakistan and that all judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. Chowdhury Muhammad Khan Vs. Sanaullah, (1973) 25 DLR (SC) 45. ....View Full Judgment

—Application for special leave to appeal— Objection that the appeal did not lie before the High Court was not taken before the High Court—This fact was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court dealing with the application for special leave to appeal—Had it been so brought to its notice special leave would not have been granted. M/s. Shirkag-i-Ahbab Vs. National Bank of Pakistan (1969) 21 DLR (SC) 275. ....View Full Judgment

Jurisdiction—Matters which lie within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of Supreme Court cannot under a misapprehension be usurped by a High Court Divisions.
When the matter ultimately came before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court regarding the question of attachment of four Trawlers (belonging to the defendant) the Appellate Division passed an order to the effect that three Trawlers should be released from attachment order and only one will remain under attachment under Or. 38, r. 5, CP Code. It however appears that certain officer of the Government. allowed the 4th Trawler to go. Thereupon when the matter came before the High Court Division is proceeded to take certain penal action against the offending officer for violation of the Court order regarding the Trawler which has been allowed to go. The matter again came up before the Appellate Division on being moved by the officer concerned. Held: The High Court Division was under a clear misapprehension. If the party concerned violated the order regarding the attachment of the Trawler concerned it is the order of the Appellate Division which has been violated and therefore the High Court Division acted without jurisdiction in proceeding to take action against the offending officer. In these circumstances High Court Division’s order is infructuous. Md. Muzaffar Hossain Vs. King Fishers Industries Ltd. (1984) 36DLR (AD) 102. ....View Full Judgment

—Fresh point involving investigation into facts disallowed in appeal
The point that appointment in Class I post by the Postmaster-General without the approval of the President was itself bad, was not raised before the High Court. This point when raised before the Supreme Court was disallowed since investigation into facts may be necessary to find out whether approval of the President was or was not obtained. The Postmaster-General, Eastern Circle (EP) Vs. Muhammad Hashim (1971) 23 DLR (SC) 49. ....View Full Judgment