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

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.
The High Court Division held that this section prohibits the trial of two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject-matter and the same relief between the same parties, the policy of law being to avoid multiplicity of suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions. Where a party seeks relief under Section 10 CPC to stop further proceedings of a subsequently instituted suit between the same parties, it lies squarely upon the applicant to show to the court that a multiplicity of action in the subsequent proceeding is veracious and totally unwanted. One essential test of the applicability of section 10 CPC is whether the decision in the earlier suit will operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. Even if the application succeeds in proving that some of the issues of the two suits are common but others are not, still then he is not entitled to get further proceedings of the subsequent suit stayed till the disposal of the previous suit. Husne Afza Jenifer and others -Vs.- Hosne Ara Begum and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 207 ....View Full Judgment

Partition Suit or Title Suit, Ubi Jus ibi remedium, Section 54, Order 20, Rule 18 and Order 26, Rule 13, Joint tenants;
Simply remanding back the suit for proper evaluation of the much-discussed documentary evidences, there shall not be an effective adjudication of the suit.
Since in a partition suit, a person approaches the Civil Court with a grievance of not being able to enjoy his/her property absolutely or independently or peacefully and, in responding to the plaintiff’s case, if the defendant questions the very title of the plaintiff, in that scenario, it is incumbent upon the Court to assess and determine the plaintiff’s title, right and interest in the suit land.
If the plaintiff does not make proper prayer in the plaint, the suit must not be dismissed on the said ground; rather it would be the duty of the Court to frame appropriate issue/s on the basis of the pleadings and submissions put forwarded by all the parties to the suit and proceed with the suits towards its effective disposal. ...Md. Akram Ali & ors. Vs. Khasru Miah & ors., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 53 ....View Full Judgment

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

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.
The High Court Division held that it appears that the plaint was initially checked and sealed by the ministerial staff and then presented before the learned Subordinate Judge. The Court then passed an order to register the plaint and issue notice upon the defendant, presumably on satisfaction that the plaint suffered from no latches with the meaning of Order VII rule 11 C.P.C. In pursuance of the notices, the defendant-pe-titioner appeared and filed a petition pray-ing for rejecting the plaint. The learned Judge in exercise of his discretion rejected the same without reasons recorded in the judgment. The original Court having dis-allowed the prayer for rejecting of the plaint by a judicial order, in exercise his discretion, we think, the High Court Division should not interfere with the same under section 115 C.P.C. and the lower Court passes a judicial order in exercise of its discretion, the High Court Division shall be reluctant to interfere with such order and there has been an absolute failure of justice of the case. Md. Motaleb Hossain -Vs.- Md. Mozammel Hossain (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 1 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence cannot be corrected in the form of modification under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Discretionary power of a court as has been inserted in Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be exercised where alternative remedies are available. After administering oath in the open court when the evidence of a witness is recorded by a trial court it cannot be discarded or changed or corrected in the form of modification except recalling the witness following the prescribed provision of law enunciated in the Evidence Act, 1872. ...Farid Hossain Vs. Mst. Jahanara Begum & ors, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 119 ....View Full Judgment

A plaint can be rejected by taking recourse of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the instant case the plaintiff has been able to made out distinct cause which should be adjudicated by the Court of law without having buried it at its inception and hence, inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked here. ...Kamal Miah & ors. Vs. Lakkatura Tea Co. Ltd & ors., (Civil), 11 SCOB [2019] HCD 109 ....View Full Judgment