Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Code of Civil Procedure (Bangladesh) SECTIONS (See CPC Orders in another title) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Preliminary–– |
Preliminary–– The main allegation in the plaint for declaring that
preliminary decree and final decrees void was that the decrees were
obtained by plaintiffs by suppressing the summonses of the suit upon the
defendants.
|
Anjuman Ara & others =VS= Md. Abul Hossain & others | 1 LM (AD) 208 |
Section 2 |
read with Specific Relief Act, 1877 Section-42
|
Shamsun Nahar Begum & Org. Vs. Zohora Begum & Ors. | 13 BLT (AD) 231 |
Section 2 |
"District", "District Court" & 'Judge', In section 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 'District", "District Court", 'Judge' are defined as follows:
|
AKM Ruhul Amin vs District Judge | 38 DLR (AD) 172 |
Section 2(2) |
After passing of the final decree in a partition suit it is effective
between the admitted co-sharers and for the purpose of a preemption
proceeding where the transfer is made by a co-sharer to a stranger, this
question of execution of the final decree between the cosharers is not
relevant and necessary.
|
Shafiuddin Chowdhury (Md) vs Md Abdul Karim and others | 52 DLR (AD) 41 |
Sections 2(2), 96 & Order IX rule 13 |
Appeal -Effect of its disposal- ‘Appeal’ which has not been defined in
the Code, is meant to be an application by an aggrieved party asking an
Appellate Court to set aside, modify or revise a decision of a subordinate
Court-an 'appeal' even if irregular, incompetent or time-barred is
nonetheless an appeal-the order of dismissal of a memorandum of appeal as
time-barred comes within the deeming provision of section 2(2) of the Code,
because by such an order the rights of parties with regard to matters in
dispute are finally determined.
|
Abdul Mannan vs Jobeda Khatun | 44 DLR (AD) 37 |
Sections 2(2), 33 |
It is one of the settled principles of law that a party who has accepted
the preliminary decree cannot subsequently challenge the final decree–
Defendant Nos.4 to 6 in their written statement specifically admitted that
they took lease of some land from the predecessors of the plaintiff and the
defendants and as such, they are lessee in the suit land and it is further
evident that they did not pray for any saham when preliminary decree was
drawn up and as such, they cannot challenge the final decree as drawn up
subsequently.
|
Hurunnessa Khatun(Mst.) =VS= Khandaker Abdul Mukit | 11 LM (AD) 107 |
Sections 3, 9 and 115(1) |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Rabiul Islam (Md) =VS= Asadul Haque (Md) | 7 LM (AD) 363 |
Sections 6,15, 22/ 24 and 115(1)(2) |
The Full Bench considering sections 6, 22, 24 and Order XLVIII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 as
amended by the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2001, sections 8,11,19 and 21
of the Civil Courts Act, 1887 and other relevant provisions of law has come
to the conclusion that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the
revisional application against the order of the Joint District Judge in a
suit the valuation of which is above Tk. 5,00,000 (Taka five lac) and in
such matters the revisional application shall lie before the High Court
Division under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
|
Bangladesh vs AHM Khurshed Ali | 13 BLC (AD) 114 |
Section 7 |
The petitioner’s title suit for declarations that the disputed property
was not an abandoned property and he has right, title and interest thereto
on the basis of registered deed of agreement and a general power of
attorney having been dismissed on contest, the said decision of the civil
Court with regard to the nature of the property and the plaintiffs claim
thereto are not only binding upon the present petitioner but also upon the
Court of Settlement consequently the court of Settlement acted without any
lawful authority in declaring the property in question as not an abandoned
property and issuing a direction for restoration of possession to the
petitioner.
|
Mohammad Moinuddin Vs. Bangladesh | 16 BLD (AD) 165 |
Section 9 |
The general remedy of the suit under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be impliedly barred where a right is created by a special law and special forum is provided in it. ...Sultan Ahmed & anr Vs. Johur Ahmed & ors, 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 47 ....View Full Judgment |
Sultan Ahmed & anr Vs. Johur Ahmed & ors | 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 47 |
Section 9 |
Suits which a Court is barred to try-Under section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure any Civil Court has jurisdiction, "to try all suits of a civil
nature excepting suits of which their cognisance is either expressly or
impliedly barred".
|
Nur Muhammad vs Mainuddin | 39 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 9(3) 29C, 31(4), 409 |
Assistant Sessions Judge deemed to be Additional Sessions Judge — not to
be so deemed for all purposes—
|
Abul Kashem Vs. The State | 43 DLR (AD) 77 |
Section 9 |
Decision of the civil Court with regard to the nature of the property and
also the plaintiffs claim thereto is not only binding upon the present
petitioner but also upon the Court of Settlement.
|
Moinuddin (Md) vs The People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Works | 48 DLR (AD) 56 |
Section 10 |
No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in
issue is also directly and substantially in a previously instituted suit
between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them
claims litigation under the same title.
|
Husne Afza Jenifer and others -Vs.- Hosne Ara Begum and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 207 |
Section 10 r/w Section-151 |
The provision of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply
to the simultaneous hearing of a later and earlier suit. after
consolidation of the two. Its intenment is not to take away the inherent
power of the court to consolidate suits and hear them simultaneously for
the ends of justice.
|
Most. Shahida Khatun Vs. Abdul Malek Howlader & Ors. | 9 BLT (AD) 148 |
Section 10 |
An order for simultaneously hearing and disposal of two suits-should not be
passed as a matter of course.
|
Bangladesh Shilpa Bank vs Bangladesh Hotels Ltd. | 38 DLR (AD) 70 |
Section 11 |
Principles of resjudicata– The question of resjudicata cannot be decided
by dint of objection raised in the application for addition of party
without framing issues at the time of trial– The principles of
resjudicata must be fulfilled which are as follows:
|
Mohammad Nurul Haque =VS= Md. Nurul Haque | 10 LM (AD) 74 |
Section 11 |
In the suit the plaintiff has raised the question that the earlier decree
was obtained on fraud. But when the District Judge, Sylhet who has allowed
the appeal filed by the defendant and sent back the suit on remand by was
of a judicial order. The question of fraud apparently has got no substance
court can not make fraud. Raising question of fraud in the matter
practically plaintiff raised his finger upon court, which is ominous and
not acceptable.
|
Md. Shahidullah Bhuiyan and others: -Vs.- Rabitat-Al-Alam-Al-Islami and others | 11 ALR (AD) 68 |
Section 11 |
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Aziz Ara Rahman Vs. RAJUK and others | 19 SCOB [2024] AD 1 |
Section 11 |
Res judicata:
|
Niko Resources (Bd) Ltd Vs. Professor M. Shamsul Alam & ors | 19 SCOB [2024] AD 125 |
Section 11 |
If the adverse finding is actually the decision of the suit and forms a fundamental part of the decree then it will operate as res judicata, if made incidentally. Sachindra Lal Das vs Hriday Ranjan Das 40 DLR (AD) 56. |
Sachindra Lal Das vs Hriday Ranjan Das | 40 DLR (AD) 56 |
Section 11 |
What is res judicata? An adverse finding in any judgment of a suit dismissed, particularly when it is a conclusive decision in the suit, can be challenged in higher forums. Decision in the Redemption suits was on the same issue as in subsequent suit. Sachindra Lal Das vs Hriday Ranjan Das 40 DLR (AD) 56. |
Sachindra Lal Das vs Hriday Ranjan Das | 40 DLR (AD) 56 |
Section 11 |
It may be mentioned that a decision may be Res judicata against codefendants as well if there was conflict between them as held by the Privy Council in Munni Bibi vs Tirloki Nath, 53 ILR PC 103 and Kishum Prasad vs Durga Prasad, AIR 1931 PC 281 on this analogy also the decision against Chadra Bala, in Ext B, will operate as res judicata. Sachindra Lal Das vs Hriday Ranjan Das 40 DLR (AD) 56. |
Sachindra Lal Das vs Hriday Ranjan Das | 40 DLR (AD) 56 |
Section 11 |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Abdul Gafur =VS= Md Muklesur Rahman | 12 LM (AD) 200 |
Section 11 |
Res Judicata
|
Mohammad Moinuddin Vs The People’s Republic of Bangladesh and another | 16 BLD (AD) 122 |
Section 11-Explanation IV |
Res judicata -Constructive res judicata- Two suits, the earlier suit was
for declaration of title and the latter suit for declaration of title and
recovery of possession- the latter suit is hit by section 11, Explanation V
CPC.
|
Hafizuddin Sarker and Lakjan Bewa and others vs Bangladesh and ors. | 42 DLR (AD) 57 |
Sections 11, 151 & Order VII rule II |
It is well settled that where a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII,
rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure the court may invoke its inherent
jurisdiction and reject the plaint taking recourse to section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
|
Abdul Jalil and others vs Islamic Bank Bangladesh Ltd and others | 53 DLR (AD) 12 |
Sections 12,13, and 44(A) |
Sections 12, 13 and 44(A) of the Code of. Civil Procedure do not apply to
foreign award in Bangladesh. In India, the foreign awards are enforced by
following a separate procedure provided under the Foreign Award Recognition
and Enforcement Act, 1961. There is thus no difficult in India in
enforcement of a foreign award. [Per Latifur Rahman, J.]
|
Bangladesh Air Service (Pv.) lid. Vs. British Airways PLC | 17 BLD (AD) 249 |
Sections 20 and 115 |
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Secretary, Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC), Dhaka -Vs.- M/S. M. Islam and Co. and others | 8 ALR (AD) 291 |
Section 20(c) & Order VII rule 11 |
In an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action the court need not dissect the plaintiff's case part by part, if a part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. Guiness Peat (Trading) Ltd vs Fazlur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 242. |
Guiness Peat (Trading) Ltd vs Fazlur Rahman | 44 DLR (AD) 242 |
Section 20 & Order 2(2) |
Cause of action may be defined as every fact which it would be necessary
for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right for
the judgment of the Court.
|
Amir Hossain Khairati vs Abdul Aziz Bepari and others | 47 DLR (AD) 106 |
Section 20 & Order VII rule 10 |
Jurisdiction to entertain suit-A corporation can be said to carry on
business at the place where it has a branch only in respect of a cause of
action which arises wholly or in part at such place. If no part of the
cause of action accrues at the place of the branch office the mere fact of
the corporation having a branch office at the place will not give the court
jurisdiction to entertain a suit.
|
Kh Mahatabuddin Ahmed vs Matin Tea & Trading Company | 46 DLR (AD) 92 |
Section 20(c) & Order VII rule 11 |
Jurisdiction-When the Court rejects or refuses to reject a plaint it does
so in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. Even where clause (d) of
Order VII rule 11 of the Code is invoked the court is entitled to examine
whether the suit is barred by law.
|
Guiness Peat (Trading) Ltd vs Fazlur Rahman | 44 DLR (AD) 242 |
Section 21 |
No objection as to the jurisdiction shall be allowed unless such objection
was taken at earliest possible opportunity. But it is by now well settled
that consent or waiver cannot give jurisdiction where there is inherent
lack or absence of it and in that the order is a nullity.
|
Supreme Court of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Shafiuddin | 10 BLT (AD) 50 |
Section 21 |
The policy of the legislature has been to treat objections as to
jurisdiction both territorial or pecuniary as purely technical for the
reason that section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no
objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed unless such objection
was taken at the earliest stage but objection not having been taken would
not vitiate the trial. Similarly objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction
which is for the purpose of Court fee and availing a forum of appeal /
revision is mostly of formal nature and the Court with higher pecuniary
jurisdiction could decide a suit of lower pecuniary value and would not
render the decree void. It is also desirable that the grievance of the
plaintiff would be resolved in a single suit.
|
Md. Shamsul Haque Vs. Md. Salimullah & Ors. | 14 BLT (AD) 7 |
Section 24 |
Transfer the suit from one district to another district–
|
Anwar Hossain(Md) =VS= Lutfar Nahar | 7 LM (AD) 189 |
Section 24 |
Power of transfer and withdrawal
|
Government of Bangladesh and another Vs Md. Razor Rahman Chowdhury | 17 BLD (AD) 173 |
Section 24(1)(b)(i) |
There cannot be any assumption that a District Judge who is a party to a
suit will receive automatic support and sympathy of his peers while trying
a suit to which he is a party. To give way to such assumptions will be a
ruinous invitation to a floodgate which should not be opened. The High
Court Division rightly did not encourage a transfer on a mere unfounded
apprehension.
|
Mosammat Shahida Khatun Vs Abdul Malek Howlader and ors. | 18 BLD (AD) 217 |
Section 24(1)(b)(i) |
There cannot be any assumption that a District Judge who is a party to a suit will receive automatic support and sympathy of his peers while trying a suit to which he is a party. To give way to such assumption will be a ruinous invitation to a floodgate which we have no intention to open. As yet the petitioner has not given any hard evidence of the trial Court's fear or favour of and for the District Judge concerned. The High Court Division rightly di Shahida Khatun vs Abdul 'Malek Howlader and others 50 DLR (AD) 147. |
Shahida Khatun vs Abdul 'Malek Howlader and others | 50 DLR (AD) 147 |
Section 34 |
The Appellate Division held that since the respondents are obliged to pay the loan taken from the Bank for utilizing the amount in the contract work at the rate of 18% compound interest, ends of justice would be best served if the appellant is directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% in respect of the decreetal amount till realization. The High Court Division also found that the interest calculated and awarded by the trial Court is maintainable and there is no evidence to show that awarding or calculating of such interest is against any agreement or against any interest on record, the appeal is dismissed. .....D.C.C =VS= M/s. Abdul Kader (Pvt.) Ltd & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 418] ....View Full Judgment |
D.C.C =VS= M/s. Abdul Kader (Pvt.) Ltd & others | 1 LM (AD) 418 |
Section 34 |
Section 47B of the Insurance Act, 1938 as amended by Ordinance XXV of l 970
provides for granting of interest on claims. This provision displaces the
discretion of the Court conferred by section 34 of the Code of Civil
Procedure in the matter of granting interest. Hence the plaintiff-appellant
is entitled to the statutory interest under section 4 7B of the Insurance
Act. The Court has no discretion in the matter.
|
Chalna Marine Products Ltd vs Reliance Insurance Ltd and others | 50 DLR (AD) 100 |
Section 34(1) and (2) |
Realisation of interest pendente lite - Decree is silent about the award of
interest-Sub-section (1) expostulates the different stages where interest
can be awarded by the Court-But no interest can be claimed if the interest
is not granted in the decree.
|
Sonali Bank vs Mahbubul Amin | 42 DLR (AD) 107 |
Section 35A |
The Court justly discharged the Rule with the compensatory cost considering
the conduct of the petitioner as vexatious aimed at delaying the execution
case.
|
Abdur Rahman (Md) v.r Md Iqbal Ahmed and others | 49 DLR (AD) 142 |
Section 42 |
For success in a suit for declaration of title the plaintiff must prove his
title and possession in the suit property.
|
Md. Abdul Matin Kazi and others -Vs.-Government of Bangladesh | 3 ALR (AD) 70 |
Section 47 |
Stay of Execution
|
Tapan Kumer Basak Vs. Gouranga Ch. Tarafdar & Ors. | 7 BLT (AD) 310 |
Sections 47, 48(2)(a) |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Moslehuddin Ahmed =VS= Abdul Gafur | 12 LM (AD) 188 |
Section 48 |
The decree-holder obtained the decree on 12-8-59 and the decree-holder’s
son filed the latest Execution case more than 18 years after the decree was
obtained — Held: The latest Execution Case No. 5 of 1977 filed on 26-8-77
is barred by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the High
Court Division erred in law in holding that section 48 C.P.C. has no manner
of application in this case. [Para – 13]
|
A. D.C. Pabna Vs. Md. Abdul Halim Mia | 4 BLT (AD) 90 |
Section 48 |
An application for execution has to satisfy first Article 182 of the
Limitation Act being the earliest period prescribed and then also section
48 CPC which prescribed the maximum period of limitation. If the execution
petition is hit by any of the two provisions it is to fail. ADC (Revenue).
|
Pabna vs Md Abdul Halim Mia | 48 DLR (AD) 141 |
Section 51(a) & Order XXI rule 11(2)(j)(i) |
Decree for delivery of possession of an immovable property must specify the
property to facilitate execution. The executing Court can neither go beyond
nor behind the decree to supply the specification which is not there in the
decree itself, because that would amount to usurping the jurisdiction of
the trial Court.
|
Sahera Khatun and others vs Abdul Gaffar @Abdul Gafar and others | 55 DLR (AD) 79 |
Section 54, Order 20, R. 18 & Order 26, R. 13 |
Partition Suit or Title Suit, Ubi Jus ibi remedium, Section 54, Order 20,
Rule 18 and Order 26, Rule 13, Joint tenants;
|
Md. Akram Ali & ors. Vs. Khasru Miah & ors. | 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 53 |
Section 56 |
Applies against arrest and detention of woman in civil prison—
|
Hazera Begum Vs. Artha Rin Adalat and others | 12 MLR (AD) 281 |
Section 56 |
The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990
|
Hazera Begum =VS= Artha Rin Adalat | 4 LM (AD) 225 |
Section 66( 1) |
The said provision applies where the plaintiff tries to enforce his secret
title as against the certificated purchaser. It has no application when the
benamdar himself or his successor does not lay any claim under the sale
certificate.
|
Sananda Barua & Anr. Vs. Pramatosh Barua & Ors. | 9 BLT (AD) 269 |
Section 73 |
Appellate Division held that there is no doubt that in case of a decree for
foreclosure, be it the High Court Division, or any other superior Court, it
has no power to issue certificate to alienate the mortgaged property for
enabling the judgment-debtor to raise money for payment of the total
decretal amount by private sale without the consent of the decree-holder.
|
Agrani Bank -Vs.- Anwarul Bashir Khan | 5 ALR (AD) 99 |
Section 80 and Order IX Rule 6(1)(a) |
Pattannama–– No notice was served upon the Government–– The Gazipur
Samabaya Krishi Khamar Limited prayed for a decree in respect of 200 acres
of land out of 232.60 acres of land of C.S. plot No.171, which is huge land
and it claimed that the Bhawal Court of Wards settled the same to one
Muslehuddin and two others on 06.02.1939 on the basis of pattannama. There
is no finding as to whether said Gazipur Samabaya Krishi Khamar Ltd. had
been able to prove said pattannama or not . Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, Appellate Division finds substance in the appeal.
|
DC, Gazipur =VS= Gazipur Samabaya Krishi Khamar Ltd. | 15 LM (AD) 432 |
Section 91(2) |
The primary allegation Is in fact one, which affects the plaintiff and this
unlawful action of the defendant causes private nuisance to the plaintiff.
Sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Code can be invoked in the case of
private nuisance. [Para-7]
|
Wahid Mia Vs. Dr. Rafiqul Islam & Ors. | 7 BLT (AD) 26 |
Section 92 |
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Jotilal Chowdhury =VS= Suruchi Bala Singha @Ambika Devi | 14 LM (AD) 120 |
Section 92 |
This provision is meant for trusts created for public purposes which may be
of a charitable or religious nature, and for trust properties governed by
the Trust Act. It is not applicable to charitable societies registered
under the Societies Registration Act. (Per Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, CJ)
|
BRAC v. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others | 22 BLD (AD) 41 |
Section 92 |
This section is meant for trust properties which is governed by Trust Act
and not applicable to charitable societies registered under the Societies
Registration Act.
|
BRAC and others vs Professor Mozajfar Ahmed and others | 54 DLR (AD) 36 |
Section 96(3) |
DESA does not have any objection if the amount forfeited on account of bank guarantee of the petitioner is returned– The High Court Division after due consideration of the submissions of writ-respondent No.6, DESA authority, made the Rule absolute on the basis of the admission of the DESA authority and directed to return the forfeited amount to the writ-petitioner. So, the finding of the High Court Division appears to be very clear and innocent finding which does not call for any interference by this Court. .....Dhaka Electric Supply Authority (DESA) =VS= Md Shaheen Shabuddin Khan, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 92] ....View Full Judgment |
Dhaka Electric Supply Authority (DESA) =VS= Md Shaheen Shabuddin Khan | 12 LM (AD) 92 |
Section 96 |
Appeal-Effect of its disposal -'Appeal' which has not been defined in the
Code, is meant to be an application by an aggrieved party asking an
appellate Court to set aside, modify or revise a decision of a subordinate
court-an 'appeal' even if irregular, incompetent or time-barred is
nonetheless an appeal-the order of dismissal of a memorandum of appeal as
time-barred comes within the deeming provision of section 2(2) of the Code,
because by such an order the rights of parties with regard to matters in
dispute are finally determined.
|
Abdul Mannan vs Jobeda Khatun | 44 DLR (AD) 37 |
Section 96(3) and Order II rule 2(2) |
Consent Decree-Limitation and Estoppel - Plaintiffs elected to give up all the reliefs prayed for in the suit and to limit their prayer, by amendment, to a declaration that they are the sole legal heirs of the loanee. On understanding with the plaintiffs, the defendants neither opposed the amendment nor advanced any argument. Since the plaintiffs elected to relinquish all reliefs except the one for saving the suit from limitation and to secure some benefits for themselves, they are bound by the principle of estoppel and cannot be allowed to argue for the same reliefs which they had voluntarily abandoned. The decree obtained by them being based on understanding and consent of the parties, they are not permitted to take any appeal from such consent decree. On the same principle, the defendant is also barred from preferring any appeal from the High Court Division's judgment. Parveen Babu vs. BHBFC 42 DLR (AD) 234. |
Parveen Babu vs. BHBFC | 42 DLR (AD) 234 |
Sections 97, 151 and 152 |
Amendment of decree—When it can be done 7 —The Court can always amend
the decree if there is a mistake that had crept in for bringing the decree
in conformity with the judgment.
|
Ismail Ullah, being dead his heirs Bazidullah and others Vs. Sukumar Chandra Das | 6 BLD (AD) 251 |
Section 98 |
If the point of difference is not stated by the learned Judges, it will be
for the Third Judge to whom the case is referred to ascertain the same and
to give his opinion thereon– We find that though the learned Judges of
the High Court Division did not state in their judgments, which question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved in the case,
this Division held that for such defect, the appeal before this Division
was not incompetent on the score of defective certificate.
|
Shajahan Mia(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Forest, Bangladesh | 10 LM (AD) 122 |
Section 99 |
Section 99 C.P.C. provides that no decree shall be reversed or
substantially varied on account of any misjoinder Of parties or causes of
action etc. not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the
Court. In the absence of any material to prove that the merit of the
present case has been affected because of the alleged misjoinder of causes
of action, grievance on that score cannot be entertained.
|
Sharafat Hossain being dead his heirs Md. Shah Jamal and others Vs. Dr. Islamuddin | 14 BLD (AD) 137 |
Section 100 |
Absolute bar on interference by the High Court on findings of facts by the
subordinate Court.
|
Abdul Mannan Khan vs Bangladesh | 38 DLR (AD) 201 |
Section 100 |
The appellate court reversed the finding of fact on evidence but once it is
shown that such reversal has been made without taking notice of the
documentary evidence the second appellate Court may reassess the evidence
and come to its own finding on this point.
|
Abdul Latif vs Abdul Malek Kazi | 38 DLR (AD) 22 |
Section 100 |
Interference with the decision of lower appellate Court.
|
Naimuddin vs AK Biswas | 39 DLR (AD) 237 |
Section 103 |
High Court Division without going into the heart of the matter objected to
the finding of the appellate Court. In 38 DLR (AD) 22 it is held that the
second appellate Court may reassess the evidence and come to its own
finding where the appellate Court reversed the trial Court's finding of
fact without taking any notice of a material document on record. It was
settled long ago in Najar Chandra Pal vs Sukur Sk AIR 1918 PC 92 that the
High Court should not interfere with the findings of fact on the ground
that upon the document and evidence being placed before the lower court the
High Court would have come to a different conclusion.
|
Sudhir Chandra vs Harimohan Das | 39 DLR (AD) 218 |
Section 103 |
High Court Division's function in Second Appeal-Various decisions
discussed. The High Court interfered with that finding and decided issues
itself after resorting to section 103 of the Code. In upholding that
decision it was held "that the function of the High Court in a second
appeal is not the mere correction of error of a legal proposition, or
pointing out the true procedure, but also to determine properly, issues of
fact after making the correct exposition of law, if such determination is
essential for disposal of the appeal. Subject to this narrow jurisdiction
of interference, the finding of fact of the first appellate Court is
conclusive and binding upon the High Court. "In 35 DLR (AD) 216 this court
upheld the High Court Division's interference in second appeal with the
lower appellate Court's finding of fact as to a tenancy, arrived at after
excluding from its consideration the plaintiffs document of title and a
long series of rent-receipts.
|
Sudhir Chandra vs Harimohan Das | 39 DLR (AD) 218 |
Sections 104 & 105 |
If a party has taken an appeal or a revision against an interlocutory
order, whether the decision therein can be challenged when an appeal is
taken from the decree-If a party is allowed to challenge an order twice
over, certain anomalies may arise, and that is why those orders could not
be allowed to be challenged, if they had been challenged in the higher
Court either in appeal or revision or both.
|
Yusuf vs Mofzal Ahmed Sowdagar | 45 DLR (AD) 178 |
Sections 104 and 105 |
Interlocutory Order—Such orders can be challenged in appeal against the
decree, but once appeal or revision is filed against such order and a
finality reaches, such orders cannot be challenged in appeal against the
decree —Position is not altered even though the appeal is dismissed as
being barred by limitation.
|
Md. Yusuf Vs. Mofzal Ahmed Sowdagar | 1 BLD (AD) 456 |
Section 107 |
ln view of the contentious submissions of the parties, it was the duty of
the courts below to send the impugned documents to Handwriting Expert for
opinion. Such opinion being not taken by either of the Courts below, the
appeal is allowed, impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The First
Appeal is remanded to the High Court Division with a direction to hear the
appeal afresh after obtaining report from the competent Handwriting Expert
as to execution of the documents.
|
Nurul Huq (Md)@ MN Huq vs Nirmal Chandra Dutta and another | 56 DLR (AD) 143 |
Section 107(2) |
In view of the provision of section 107(2) of the Code the High Court
Division was competent to compare the signature of the defendant in the
'bainapatra' with his available signatures and, as such, was in error in
sending back the case for the said purpose to the trial Court.
|
Aftab Ali (Captain Retired) vs SM Kutubuddin | 56 DLR (AD) 117 |
Section 107 (b ) |
There may be cases( s) where right of the parties to the proceeding to send
back on remand is dependent on the result of a suit filed earlier still
remains pending, the order of remand by the appellate/higher Court made in
such a situation cannot be considered unjustified.
|
Begum Lutfunnessa vs Md Shafiullah and others | 55 DLR (AD) 102 |
Section 107(1)(b) & Order XLI rule 23 |
The suit ought not to have been remanded for giving an opportunity to amend
the plaint for making out a new case of adverse possession.
|
Golam Rahman vs Hazera Khatun | 47 DLR (AD) 108 |
Section 107, 151 and Order 41, Rules 23, 25 |
No remand Order can however be made to facilitate a party to fill up the lacuna in his case–– It’s true that a suit can be remanded by the appellate court with direction for giving findings and decision on certain issues where the trial court omitted to do so. As per Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellate court has the authority of remand of a case under the conditions elaborated in Order 41, Rules 23 and 25. The appellate court can too put into effect the power of remand in exercise of its inherent power. These powers of the appellate court are not restricted to exact case mentioned in Rule 23. The court may also order a remand in cases other than those covered under Rule 23 and may do so also under Section 151 of the Code if it becomes necessary for the ends of justice. Even the High Court Division can make an order of remand while exercising revisional jurisdiction if it is so required for full and effective adjudication of all the relevant points involved in a case. No remand Order can however be made to facilitate a party to fill up the lacuna in his case. .....Abdul Gaffar =VS= Md. Abdul Miah, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 40] ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Gaffar =VS= Md. Abdul Miah | 13 LM (AD) 40 |
Section 107 |
(Power of appellate court)
|
Jahed Ali Sardar & others =VS= Malin Chandra Dhali & others | 1 LM (AD) 78 |
Section 114 & Order XLVII rule 1 |
Bangladesh Land Holding (Limitation) Order, 1972 (P.O.98 of 1972)
|
Bangladesh =VS= Ashiyan City Development Ltd. | 16 LM (AD) 486 |
Sections 114, 141 & Order XLVII rule 1 |
There is no provision in the Constitution precluding the High Court
Division to review its Judgment and order-The Court's inherent power to do
justice to the parties before it is accepted one and for that purpose the
form in which the Court shall dispense justice is a matter for the Court to
resort to.
|
Serajuddin Ahmed and others vs AKM Saiful Alam and others | 56 DLR (AD) 41 |
Section 114 and Order XLVII, rule 1 |
CPC
|
Narendra Chandra Das -Vs.- Sree Sree Gopal Bigraha | 3 ALR (AD) 18 |
Section 115(1) |
A suit cannot be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties if it is found that in absence of those persons proper efficacious relief can be awarded. Where glaring in consistency with the evidence on records is noticed and where it appears that there has been misreading or non-reading of evidence or non-consideration of material facts resulting in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice, in that case only this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is entitled to exercise this jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below. Otherwise, the Appellate Court being the final court of facts, the judgment and decree passed by this court is immune from interference. Bankim Chandra Bala -Vs.- Abu Sayed and others. (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 334 ....View Full Judgment |
Bankim Chandra Bala -Vs.- Abu Sayed and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 334 |
115 read with Order VII rule 11 |
When from the statements made in the plaint it appears that the cause of
action arose beyond the period of limitation fixed under the statute and no
indication is given that limitation has been saved, the plaint may be
rejected. In a proper case, when it appears to be barred by limitation, the
plaint may be allowed to be amended without rejecting it. It is not
mandatory for the Court to reject the plaint.
|
Md. Motaleb Hossain -Vs.- Md. Mozammel Hossain | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 1 |
Section 115(1) |
It is settled principle that starting of the V.P. proceedings after 23.03.1974 by Act 45 of 1974 no vested property case can be started thereafter on the basis of law which is already dead. The High Court Division held that the authority derequisitioned the property in favour of Rama Rani Kar the vendor of the plaintiff Mostafizur Rahman and ultimately accepted that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land by the order dated 07.09.1985. But suddenly on an application of some allottee the application of the plaintiff Mostafizur Rahman was rejected by order dated 28.03.1987 and handed over the said building in favour of the V.P. authority on the same day. From the aforesaid position of the case it is my view that both the court without considering the aforesaid evidence on record erroneously took view that the title of the vendor of Rama Rani Kar is not proved which is clear misreading of the evidence on record. Since the record shows that the authority derequisitioned the property in favour of Rama Rani Kar and after claiming the land by the plaintiff which was surrender in favour of the V.P. authority which is not a fair practice. A.B.M. Mustafizur Rahman -Vs.- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 122 ....View Full Judgment |
A.B.M. Mustafizur Rahman -Vs.- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 122 |
Section 115 |
Finding of fact can be interfered with. The crux of the instant case is
whether the appellant was born of any legally married wife of Amir Ali and
if the answer is in the negative his claim to sonship shall fail straight
away, and the acknowledgement of Amir Ali will be of no avail and the
presumption as to legitimacy raised by the acknowledgement shall stand
rebutted. It is only to rebut this presumption that the suit has been
brought. By a concurrent finding the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate
Court held that there was no woman like Monowara Begum but she was invented
for the purpose of the suit and that Amir had no wife named Monowara
Begum.
|
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan | 38 DLR (AD) 133 |
Section 115 |
Revisional powers-Plea of exceeding jurisdiction by entertaining new facts
given in the supplementary affidavit- The supplementary affidavit gave
explanation (as to delay in filing the appeal) with further and detailed
facts. High Court Division pointed out the omissions made by the District
Judge in considering the prayer for condonation of delay and found
reasonable explanation therefor. This is within the limits of the court's
revisional power.
|
Mohammad Ali & others vs Circle Officer (Revenue) Dhaka &others | 44 DLR (AD) 15 |
Section 115 |
The Code of Civil Procedure
|
Kohinur Begum =VS= Most Majeda Khatun | 15 LM (AD) 206 |
Section 115 |
It is now well settled that the High Court Division in revisional jurisdiction has got the jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact of the courts below, if it finds error apparent on the face of record–– It is to be stated here that if there is misreading of evidence and nonconsideration of some material evidence then it was incumbent on the revisional court to consider the same and to arrive at a proper finding on the material evidence on record and to finally dispose of the case. ––Appellate Division is of the view that the judgment passed by the High Court Division based on sound principle of law and facts and there is no scope to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. .....Md. Abdul Hamid =VS= Mst. Sara Khatun, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 456] ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Abdul Hamid =VS= Mst. Sara Khatun | 15 LM (AD) 456 |
Sec. 115, Order VII Rule 11(d), Ord. XXIII R. 1(3) |
Rejection of plaint–– Porikkhit Banik from whom the plaintiff appellant purchased the suit land vide deed No. 1655 dated 24.08.1997 filed title suit No. 98 of 1992 which was decreed but on appeal it was reversed against which he filed Civil Revision before the High Court Division, but fearing the fate of the Civil Revision he withdrew the Civil Revision case, therefore, the bar of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) would operate, wherein it has been stated that the plaintiff will be precluded from placing any fresh suit if permission is not taken. ––It squarely attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence High Court Division did not commit any error in the decision by rejecting the plaint in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....Sree Shuvash Chandra Dhar =VS= Milon Chandra Banik, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 37] ....View Full Judgment |
Sree Shuvash Chandra Dhar =VS= Milon Chandra Banik | 15 LM (AD) 37 |
Section 115(1) |
Pre-emption– The High Court Division in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence on record by the Courts below– To believe or disbelieve a witness is within the domain of the Courts below and the High Court Division in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere in such domain unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence on record by the Courts below. The High Court Division reversed the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below without pointing out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record. Having considered the findings of the Courts below, we find that those are based on evidence on record. .....Abdul Aziz =VS= Unideb (BD) Limited, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 61] ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Aziz =VS= Unideb (BD) Limited | 13 LM (AD) 61 |
Section 115 |
Civil Revision is maintainable under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by learned District Judge in a proceeding under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act but such power should be exercised sparingly only in a case where it appears that the lower Courts in passing any order committed any error of law resulting in an error occasioning failure of justice. It is to be borne in mind that by repealing Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 2001 has been promulgated for speedy disposal of the disputes through privatized system, no one should be given an opportunity to frustrate the spirit of law by initiating any proceeding against each and every order having no merit. ...Mitul Properties Ltd Vs. M.N.H. Bulu, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 257 ....View Full Judgment |
.Mitul Properties Ltd Vs. M.N.H. Bulu | 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 257 |
Section 115(1) |
Permanent Injunction–
|
Karim Khan =VS= Kala Chand | 3 LM (AD) 236 |
Section 115(1) |
Wasiyatnama–
|
Noor Mohammad Howlader (Md.) =VS= Kulsum Begum (Mst.) | 5 LM (AD) 363 |
Section 115(1) |
When the judgment impugned before the High Court Division was the judgment
of reversal, it was its obligation to go through the record and see whether
the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court adverting its
findings and reasonings on proper consideration of the evidence.
|
Mst. Tahmina & others =VS= Zafar Ali & others | 1 LM (AD) 251 |
Section 115 |
Permanent Injunction:
|
Karim Khan & ors Vs Kala Chand & ors | 7 SCOB [2016] AD 32 |
Section 115(1) |
The Appellate Division held that the High Court Division totally failed to exercise the jurisdiction as vested under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Appellate Division found that the two Courts below took two reverse views about the title and possession of the respective parties in the suit land, so before the High Court Division, the judgment and decree impugned was the judgment and decree of reversal. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the High Court Division to consider and sift the evidence on record with reference to pleadings of the parties and see whether the Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court with reference to the evidence on record in accordance with the dictate of law, but unfortunately, the High Court Division did not make any exercise whatsoever in that direction and it, without applying its judicial mind just discharged the Rule by making general superficial observations. And as such Appellate Division sent back the matter back to the High Court Division for hearing the revision afresh and disposed of the same on merit in accordance with law on the evidence on record. .....Muktejuddin =VS= Alauddin, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 175] ....View Full Judgment |
Muktejuddin =VS= Alauddin | 1 LM (AD) 175 |
Section 115 |
The jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is very limited. It has not empowered the revisional court to sit on appeal and take into consideration new facts placed before it through affidavit. It has the power to interfere with the judgment only when there appears error of law apparent on the face of the record occasioning failure of justice. …Alhaj Dr. Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani Vs. Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] AD 19 ....View Full Judgment |
Alhaj Dr. Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani Vs. Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury & ors. | 10 SCOB [2018] AD 19 |
Section 115(1) |
The revision is sent back to the High Court Division for hearing afresh–
|
Momtaz Ahmed Sowdagar =VS= Iddgaon Bus Station Jame Masjid | 3 LM (AD) 414 |
Section 115(1) |
Revision back to the High Court Division for afresh hearing–
|
Moulavi Abdul Wahab =VS= Nur Ahmed | 3 LM (AD) 418 |
Section 115 |
Alienation of Land (Distress circumstances) (Restoration) Ordinance, 1976
|
Mohd. Keramot Ali Sarder =VS= Md. Samiruddin Sardar | 12 LM (AD) 196 |
Section 115 |
Jurisdiction means “the entitlement to enter upon the enquiry in question.” The word is a verbal cast of many colours. The jurisdiction of the High Court Division in revision is a limited one. The section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. Section 115 empowers to satisfy the High Court Division on matters that (a) the order of the Subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction (b) the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction, and (c) in exercise of jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provisions of law, or with material irregularity by committing some error of procedure in Course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. …Monowara Begum(Most.) =VS= Malanch Bibi, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 102] ....View Full Judgment |
Monowara Begum(Most.) =VS= Malanch Bibi | 8 LM (AD) 102 |
Section 115(1) |
Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929
|
Shishubar Dhali =VS= Chitta Ranjan Mondol | 14 LM (AD) 62 |
Section 115(1) |
A Court of revision under section 115(1) of the CPC can interfere with the findings of fact, as the final Court of facts, only in exceptional circumstances when the findings are shockingly perverse– It is settled principle that a Court of revision under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact, as the final Court of facts, only in exceptional circumstances when the findings are shockingly perverse or these are vitiated by non-reading of the material evidence or mis-construction of any important documents affecting the merit of the suit. But in the instant case, Appellate Division finds that the appellate Court below have made a threadbare discussion (as has been quoted aforesaid) and left no stone unturned wherefrom it can be said that there are rooms for mis-appreciation or mis-reading or any scope to non-consideration of evidence on record. .....Hosne Ara Bibi =VS= Md. Wazed Ali Mondal, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 105] ....View Full Judgment |
Hosne Ara Bibi =VS= Md. Wazed Ali Mondal | 12 LM (AD) 105 |
Section 115 (1) |
The Limitation Act
|
Deputy Commissioner, Netrokona =VS= Md. Abdul Jalil | 14 LM (AD) 196 |
Section 115(1) |
Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Division– It appears that since the appellate Court as the last Court of fact decided the question of fact and recorded its findings on consideration of the evidence on record, the High Court Division while exercising revisional jurisdiction adverting interfere with the finding of fact specially when Appellate Division finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the appellate Court due to non consideration and misreading of the material evidence occasions failure of justice. Thus, the learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division is not justified in controverting those findings of the lower appellate Court. Thus, this Division finds that there is merit in appeal which is liable to be allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and thereby restored the judgment of the appellate Court below. .....Amjad Ali Sheikh(Md.) =VS= Koyron Bewa, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 173] ....View Full Judgment |
Amjad Ali Sheikh(Md.) =VS= Koyron Bewa | 12 LM (AD) 173 |
Section 115(4) |
The trial Court rejected the prayer by its order dated 24.09.2012. Against that order the pre-emptees filed Civil Revision No.232 of 2012 before the District Judge, Dhaka under section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code). Revision was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Dhaka by his order dated 15.03.1914. Against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, the pre-emptees filed a second revision before the High Court Division under Section 115(4) of the Code. The Rule was discharged affirming those of the learned Additional District Judge, hence this petition for leave to appeal. .....Alhaj Md. Maruf Hasan Swapan & another =VS= Kohinur Aziz & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 273] ....View Full Judgment |
Alhaj Md. Maruf Hasan Swapan & another =VS= Kohinur Aziz & others | 1 LM (AD) 273 |
Section 115(4) r/w Order VI Rule 17 |
Whether in Civil Revision, an application for amendment of the plaint is
maintainable
|
Salahuddin Khan & Ors Vs. Md. Abdul Hai Bahar & Ors. | 21 BLT (AD) 137 |
Section 115(1) |
It is now well settled principle of law that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court Division has wide power to do justice in a case and in appropriate case where the order under revision is set aside this Court can pass any consequential order necessitated by the facts of the case. ...A N M Abdul Halim Vs. BHBFC, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 113 ....View Full Judgment |
A N M Abdul Halim Vs. BHBFC | 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 113 |
Section 115(1) |
It is settled principle that the concurrent findings of facts cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under section 115(1) of the code of civil procedure. This principle support by the decision of the case of Sambunath Poddar and others-Versus-Bangladesh Railway reported in 43 DLR (AD)-82. ...Md. Bazlur Rahman Vs Shamsun Nahar & ors., (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 61 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Bazlur Rahman Vs Shamsun Nahar & ors. | 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 61 |
Section 115(1) |
The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Division is limited to
addressing the issue as to whether there was misreading or non-reading of
evidence or non-consideration of material facts by the Courts below–
Declaration of title and recovery of khas possession in respect of the suit
land described in the schedule of the plaint– The High Court Division in
discharging the Rules upheld the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts
below. Concluded that the relevant evidence both oral and documentary have
been properly assessed.
|
Momtaz Begum =VS= Shahabuddin | 9 LM (AD) 244 |
Section 115(1) |
Court of revision under section 115(1) CPC can interfere with the findings
of fact only in exceptional circumstances when the findings are shockingly
perverse merit of the suit– Appellate Division also hold the view that a
Court of revision under section 115(1) CPC can interfere with the findings
of fact, as has been arrived at by the appellate court below as being the
final Court of facts, only in exceptional circumstances when the findings
are shockingly perverse or these are vitiated by non-reading and misreading
of the material evidence or misconstruction of any important documents
affecting the merit of the suit.
|
Anwar Alam Bablu(Md.) =VS= Abdul Khaleque | 11 LM (AD) 113 |
Section 115(1) |
A Court of revision under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court which is the last Court of facts, only in exceptional circumstances when the findings are shockingly perverse– It is settled principle that a Court of revision under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court which is the last Court of facts, only in exceptional circumstances when the findings are shockingly perverse or these are vitiated by non-reading of the material evidence or mis-construction of any important documents affecting the merit of the suit. But in the instant case, Appellate Division finds that the appellate Court below as final Court of facts made a threadbare discussion and left no stone unturned, hence there was no room for misappreciation or mis-reading or any scope to no-consideration of evidence on record. Thus, it appears that the learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division erroneously disagreed with the finding of the appellate Court below. Consequently, the judgments and orders passed by the learned Judges of the Court’s below are hereby restored. ...Mohan Miah =VS= Abdur Rob, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 451] ....View Full Judgment |
Mohan Miah =VS= Abdur Rob | 11 LM (AD) 451 |
Section 115(1) |
It is settled principle that a Court of revision under section 115(1) of
the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact, as the
final Court of facts, only in exceptional circumstances when the findings
are shockingly perverse or these are vitiated by non-reading of the
material evidence or mis-construction of any important documents affecting
the merit of the suit.
|
Abdus Sattar(Md.) =VS= Nazrul Islam(Md.) | 11 LM (AD) 457 |
Section 115(4) |
In the absence of the opposite party and without issuing any Rule the order
of the High Court Division cannot be sustained– It is an accepted
principle that the opinion of an expert is a piece of evidence just as any
other evidence and may be supported or controverted by other evidence.
After considering all the evidence placed before the Court the learned
Judge hearing the matter will decide on the veracity and credibility of any
evidence produced by either party to the litigation. Moreover, both parties
are at liberty to produce any evidence to support their case and equally
they may produce evidence to counter the evidence produced by their
opponent.
|
Advocate Ranjit Das =VS= Md. Safar Miah @ Sahar Ali | 11 LM (AD) 5 |
Section 115(2), 115(4) |
State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950
|
Alhaj Md. Maruf Hasan Swapan & another =VS= Kohinur Aziz & others | 1 LM (AD) 273 |
Section 115 |
The Waqfs Ordinance, 1962
|
Alhaj Dr. Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani =VS= Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury | 5 LM (AD) 85 |
Section 115 |
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
Proddut Kumar Das =VS= A Rashid Howlader | 16 LM (AD) 472 |
Section 136 |
The Court below has power to order attachment of property situated beyond the local limit of the Court. But the Court passing the Order of attachment cannot directly attach property outside its own jurisdiction and it can only ask the Court in whose jurisdiction the property actually situated to carry out the order of attachment and complete the formalities of attachment. In the present case this Court finds that the Impugned Order passed by the Adalat was sent directly by the Court without sending the same to the District Court for compliance where the property situates. Therefore, the Impugned Order from the face of it is found to be palpably illegal and invalid in law as contained in Section 136 of the Code. ...Hazi Md. Ali Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 132 ....View Full Judgment |
Hazi Md. Ali Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat & ors | 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 132 |
Section 139 |
CPC
|
Abdul Karim & Ors. Vs. Md. Serajuddin Ahmed & Ors. | 7 BLT (AD) 160 |
Section 141 |
Section 141 CPC does not in terms apply to proceedings in writ. But the
Court in its discretion can apply the principles as distinguished from the
technical provisions of the CPC to meet the exigencies of the situation on
the ground of justice, equity and good conscience.
|
Moni Begum vs RAJUK | 46 DLR (AD) 154 |
Section 141 |
If a pre-emptee is not a co-share at the time of transfer or at the time of
institution of pre-emption proceeding and if he becomes a co sharer during
pendency of pre-emption proceeding whether he becomes a transferee to a
co-sharer — The procedure provided in the C.P.C. in regard to suits,
whether shall be followed in all proceedings in any Court of civil
jurisdiction.
|
Abdul Baten Vs. Abdul Latif Sheikh and others | 13 BLD (AD) 56 |
Section 141 |
Appellate Division observed that Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has provided that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in
regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in
all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. A succession case, in
all consideration, is a proceeding in a court of civil jurisdiction.
|
Mrs. Ruksana Huq -Vs.- A. K. Fayazul Huq | 6 ALR (AD) 25 |
Sections 144 & 151 |
The grant of restitution is not discretionary with the court, but law
imposes an obligation on the party who gets the benefit of a varied or
reversed decree to make restitution to the other party for his loss.
|
Shahana Hossain vs AKM Asaduzzaman | 47 DLR (AD) 155 |
Section 144 |
Provisions of section 144 of the Code which clearly entitles a party to pray for restoration of possession even if the possession is delivered pursuant a decree passed in a suit. .....Masum Billah(Md.) =VS= Md. Saidur Rahman, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 268] ....View Full Judgment |
Masum Billah(Md.) =VS= Md. Saidur Rahman | 3 LM (AD) 268 |
Sections 144 and 151 |
It is clear that dispossession was done not on the strength of any decree
passed by the Civil Court but it was done on the strength of a notice which
was found to be illegal and of no legal effect by the High Court Division
— the High Court Division it appears though found that Section 144 of the
Code is applicable but even if it is found that this provision is not
applicable as submitted by the learned Additional Attorney General but when
the plaintiffs were dispossessed on the basis of a notice which was found
to be illegal by the High Court Division the civil court can exercise its
inherent power under Section 151 of the Code in such a case and in the
present case this discretionary exercise of power has not run counter to
the interest of justice.
|
Military Estate Officer & Ors. Vs. SK. Mohammad Ali & Ors. | 10 BLT (AD) 2 |
Sections 144/151 |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Military Estate Officer =VS= Sk. Mohammad Ali | 4 LM (AD) 270 |
Section 148 |
Section 148 which provides for granting of time to do an act within a given
time by the Court has no application where direction to do an act is
embodied in the decree.
|
Abdul Hadi Bepari vs Safaruddin Mondal | 38 DLR (AD) 265 |
Section 148 |
In a case where a court passes a decree for specific performance of
contract the court retains the jurisdiction to extend time even though the
decree contains a clause that in default of the plaintiff to make the
requisite payment within the period fixed the suit shall stand dismissed.
|
Idris Shaikh vs Jilamon Bewa and others | 50 DLR (AD) 161 |
Section 148 |
In a case where a court passes a decree for specific performance of
contract the court retains the jurisdiction to extend time under section
148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though the decree contains a
default clause that in default of the plaintiff to make the requisite
payment within the period fixed by the court the suit shall stand
dismissed.
|
Idris Shaikh Vs. Jilamon Bewa & Ors. | 6 BLT (AD) 123 |
Section 149 |
An opportunity to pay the ad valorem court fee
|
Md. Umed Ali & Anr Vs. Mst. Hamida Khatoon & Other | 6 BLT AD) 273 |
Section 149 |
Power to make up deficiency of court-fees
|
Md. limed Ali and another Vs Mst. Hamida Khatoon and another | 18 BLD (AD) 213 |
Section 150 |
Violation of injunction—Punishment for such violation by the transferee
Court
|
Abdul Huque Vs. Mrs. Zainab Begum and others | 4 BLD (AD) 296 |
Section 151 |
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
Anwar Hossain(Md.) =VS= Kamrul Islam | 11 LM (AD) 429 |
Section 151 |
"Ends of justice"-This expression 'ends of justice' used in section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure recognises wide powers inherently possessed by
the Court to do justice in a given case. From this, it must not be supposed
that the Court can, in disregard of the established principles and norms of
law, make an order.
|
Bangladesh Shilpa Bank vs Bangladesh Hotels | 38 DLR (AD) 70 |
Section 151 |
Exercise of discretion Conflicting claims of the parties in the writ
petition. High Court Division which had granted the order of stay earlier
vacated it on being satisfied that it should be vacated ... High Court
Division has not made any arbitrary exercise of power in vacating the order
of stay.
|
Charandwip BKSS vs Deputy Commissioner Cox's Bazar | 40 DLR (AD) 213 |
Section 151 |
Maintainability of application under section 151 CPC for setting aside an
order cancelling an earlier order dismissing a Miscellaneous Case under
Order IX rule 13. The effect of an order of dismissal of the Miscellaneous
case for default is one of rejecting an application to set aside a decree
passed ex parte. It is not an order passed on merit, but ex parte. The view
taken by the High Court Division that appeal lies in both cases is correct.
This is not to say that the application under section 151 CPC is barred
under all circumstances. Since the application under section 151 in the
present case was filed 7 days after dismissal of the miscellaneous case for
default without any explanation for tfie delay, such application could not
be justified.
|
Abdul Kader Chowdhury vs Nurul Islam | 43 DLR (AD) 128 |
Section 151 |
A discretion having been exercised for restoration of the suit dismissed for default, the High Court Division committed no illegality in affirming the order passed by the trial court in exercise of power under section 151 of the Code. Abdul Quddus vs Md Mobarak Hossain 51 DLR (AD) 54. |
Abdul Quddus vs Md Mobarak Hossain | 51 DLR (AD) 54 |
Section 151 |
High Court Rules, Chap X The ground as to Court's failure to record satisfaction about the reason for absence of the Advocate when the case was called for hearing is too technical to deny the absentee opposite parties rehearing of the civil revision. Hasan Azam and others vs Rabeya Khatun and others 53 DLR (AD) 87. |
Hasan Azam and others vs Rabeya Khatun and others | 53 DLR (AD) 87 |
Section 151 |
Any order passed by a Tribunal on fraudulent misapprehension or undue influence has no legal effect and the Court or Tribunal does not become functus officio with the passing of the order so as to recall it. Government of Bangladesh and another vs MA Khair Bhuiyan 55 DLR (AD) 76. |
Government of Bangladesh and another vs MA Khair Bhuiyan | 55 DLR (AD) 76 |
Sections 151 & 153 |
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing inherent power of the
Court read with section 153 provides general power to amend any defect or
error in any proceeding of the suit and for determining the real question
or issue raised.
|
University of Dhaka represented by its Vice Chancellor vs Associated Engineering and Drillers | 56 DLR (AD) 103 |
Section 151 & Order VII rule II |
The plea of implied bar should ordinarily be decided on evidence unless the
facts disclosed in the plaint clearly prove that the suit was not
maintainable. A resort to section 151 of the Code may be made in an
exceptional case.
|
Guiness Peat (Trading) Ltd vs Fazlur Rahman | 44 DLR (AD) 242 |
Section 151 and Order IX, rule 13 |
Ex parte decree-Assistant Judge set aside the ex parte decree not upon
grounds available under Order IX, rule 13 CPC but by taking resort to the
inherent power of the Court under section 151 CPC-He cannot draw upon
inherent power while acting under a specific provision of the Act governing
the disposal of the case. Even though the learned Assistant Judge has not
come to any definite finding as to the service of summons upon the
appellant and having regard to all the facts noticed and observation made,
there is no necessity for further determination of the question of the
service of summons upon the appellant The order of the learned Assistant
Judge has rightly been set aside by the High Court Division-Appeal
dismissed.
|
Reazul Hoque Molla vs Ajizullah Mollah | 42 DLR (AD) 74 |
Section 151, Order XXXIX rule 1 |
Though the appeal of the writ-petitioner was dismissed but the ad-interim
order of injunction passed during the pendency of the appeal was a valid
order required to be complied with-Writ-respondent not having complied with
the same, the writpetitioner was entitled to restoration as ordered.
|
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and another vs Md Shamsul Haque and anr. | 46 DLR (AD) 101 |
Section 151 |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
Rajdhani Unnayan kartipakkha =VS= Shamsunnahar | 14 LM (AD) 47 |
Section 151 |
Inherent power under section 151 of CPC cannot be exercised on assumptions
and presumptions of facts:
|
Md. Noor Hossain & ors. Vs. Mahbuba Sarwar & ors. | 4 SCOB [2015] AD 4 |
Sections 151 |
The plaintiff having claimed that he had a dwelling house in the suit land and has been possessing the same “after purchase of the suit land”, until the matter is investigated and adjudicated properly against the person in possession of the property and the subsequent suit is disposed of... the Court can pass an order under its inherent jurisdiction, for staying the execution case started in a suit wherein the plaintiff was not a party. .....Zainab Banu =VS= Md. Nisar Uddin, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 503] ....View Full Judgment |
Zainab Banu =VS= Md. Nisar Uddin | 3 LM (AD) 503 |
Sections 151 |
Local Investigation–
|
Shahabuddin Ahmed =VS= Md. Hossain Ali | 4 LM (AD) 331 |
Section 151, 152 & 153 |
The identity of the premises was not challenged by the defendant appellant
at any stage of the trial. Further a copy of the tenancy agreement was
submitted which show that the premises rented out was plot No. 4313 and
therefore the mentioning of plot No. 4314 in the schedule of the plain is
obviously a typing error. The High Court Division also found that plot no.
4314 in the schedule was a typing error. The amendment sought being of the
formal nature it falls within Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of
Civil Procedure which the Court can correct. The High Court Division
therefore held that such correction of clerical Mistake does not amount to
amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 In the circumstances we do
not find any illegality in the judgment and order passed by the High Court
Division in allowing the correction in the schedule of the plaint by
substituting plot No.4313 in place of 4314.
|
Sri Narayan Chandra Pande Vs. Md. Mahbub Ali & Ors. | 9 BLT (AD) 197 |
Section 151 |
Evidence cannot be corrected in the form of modification under Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
|
Farid Hossain Vs. Mst. Jahanara Begum & ors | 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 119 |
Section 151 |
A plaint can be rejected by taking recourse of Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
|
Kamal Miah & ors. Vs. Lakkatura Tea Co. Ltd & ors | 11 SCOB [2019] HCD 109 |
Section 151 and Order 39 rule 2(3) |
The Specific Relief Act
|
Azizur Rahman Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= Tauhiduddin Chowdhury | 8 LM (AD) 29 |
Section 152 |
Any mistake in drawing up preliminary decree-whereby a property which as
the judgment makes clear, was excluded from the category of suit land can
be corrected under section 152 even though the preliminary decree was
allowed to stand.
|
Ismailullah vs Sukumar Chandra Das | 38 DLR (AD) 125 |
Section 152, Order XX rule 3 & Order XLVII rule 1 |
The judgment which has been orally dictated in the Court can be completely
changed before it is signed and sealed provided notice is given to all
parties concerned and they are heard.
|
Abdur Rashid vs Santi Bhusan Deb and others | 55 DLR (AD) 86 |
Sections 152 and 153 |
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
M. M. Ibrahim -Vs.- Mizanul Haque Chowdhury and others | 14 ALR (AD) 24 |
Section 152 |
Whether the limitation for filing an appeal against a decree will run from
the date of the decree or from the date on which the decree has been
amended on an application under section 152 of the C.P.C. Answer—from the
date of the decree.
|
Bangladesh Vs Luxmi Bibi & Ors. | 2 BLT(AD) 182 |
Sections 152 and 151 r/w Order VI, rule 17 |
The Court may at any time correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment, decree or orders or accidental errors arising there from either on its own motion or on the application of a party, but an amendment of a substantial nature, or amendment of the plaint is beyond the scope of this section. If the decree or order is sought to be varied for any reason other than clerical error or arithmetical mistake, it can be done only by way of review or by appeal. A Court apart from section 152 by virtue of its inherent power can alter or vary the order and the decree, but the Court must bring the amendment of the decree in conformity with and to harmonies the decree with the judgment. (Ismailullah vs Sukumar, 1986 BLD (AD) 251 = 38 DLR (AD) 125). But the amendment made by the Court by striking out some schedules from the plaint as well as from the decree was in no way done according to the provision of law. Nonetheless, the Court allowed the petition for amendment of decree vide order No.310 dated 18-5-2010 and as a result it was in violation of the provision of law and the decision of the apex Court. Such order was totally erroneous and the revisional Court's order upholding the same was equally erroneous. .....Nurul Islam =VS= Akkas Ali Sarder, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 355] ....View Full Judgment |
Nurul Islam =VS= Akkas Ali Sarder | 12 LM (AD) 355 |
Section 164 |
Extra-judicial confessional statement when strongly corroborated by the confessional statement of the other accused the submission that these confessional statements are not voluntarily and true is not substainable. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that immediate after apprehension of the accused Helal by the local people he made extra-judicial confessional statement before so many persons stating that he him-self along with other accused persons including accused Rakibor @ Okibor raped victim Morsheda and thereafter murdered her. There are sufficient evidence also to prove that as per this confessional statement of accused Helal some incriminating articles, namely, bloodstained curtain, quilt cover, spade and bamboo rod were recovered from the dwelling hut of accused Helal. The extra-judicial confessional statement of accused Helal followed by recovery of incriminating articles from his dwelling hut not only are sufficient to find accused Helal guilty of the charge framed against him, but this extra judicial confessional statement has strongly corroborated also the confessional statement of the other accused. Rakibor @ Okibor. Md. Rokibur @ Rokib @ Okibar -Vs.- The State (Criminal) 2019 ALR (AD) Online 330 ....View Full Judgment |
Rakibor @ Okibor. Md. Rokibur @ Rokib @ Okibar -Vs.- The State | 2019 ALR (AD) Online 330 |
(See CPC Orders in another title) |
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
|