Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (HCD)



Code of Civil Procedure (Bangladesh) ORDERS (See CPC Sections in another title)
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation Head Note Parties Name Reference/Citation
Order I Rule 9 and 13

In a suit for partition constructive possession is enough and possession of one co-sharer amounts of possession of all the co-sharers of the suit holding.
A party may be considered a necessary party if the following two conditions are satisfied. Firstly; there must be right to some relief against him in respect of the matter involved in the suit and secondly; his presence should be necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. 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
Order I Rule 11

Order 1 Rule 11 of the CPC this section does not authorize the Court to allow a third party to conduct a suit on behalf of an absent party without special authorization.
The High Court Division held that in the instant case the pre-emptor opposite party Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi filed the Miscellaneous Case being No. 17 of 1995 against the pre-emptee-petitioner and others under Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act for pre-emption of the case jote but he did not come to the Court to depose to substantiate his case rather his son namely Nilkanto Baudda Das examined without any authorization ac-corded by the concerned Court which is violative of order 1, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such his deposition is nullity and consequently treating the case as not substantiated. Consequently, the High Court Division finds substance in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Resultantly, the Rule is made absolute. Fazilatun Nessa Begum-Vs.-Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 357 ....View Full Judgment

Fazilatun Nessa Begum-Vs.-Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 357
Order XLI Rule 1, Order XLIII Rule 2

Trade Mark Act, 2009; Section 2(12), 100
Trade Mark Rules, 2015 Rule 10, 14, 15 and 50(1)
Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh; Article 107(1)
Code of Civil Procedure Order XLI Rule 1, Order XLIII Rule 2
Limitation Act, 1908 (1st Schedule) Section 5, 29(2) and Article 156
Since Bangladesh Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 does not prescribe any time limit for preferring appeal before the High Court Division against the order passed by the Registrar under the Act, 2009 as such, the time frame as prescribed in Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 2015 is applicable. ...Kazi Md. Kamrul Islam Vs. Registrar, Dep. of PDTM & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

Kazi Md. Kamrul Islam Vs. Registrar, Dep. of PDTM & ors 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 1
Order 1 Rule 10

Co-plaintiffs, interest , the Waqf Estate in the suit property; The applicant Md. Hossen and others, who had filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were not entitled to be added as plaintiffs as heirs of deceased plaintiff No. 2 Haji Badsha Miah. Because, the admitted position is that, the suit property has been claimed (in the plaint) as the property of Abdul Nabi Malum Waqf Estate, not personal property of Haji Badsha Miah. ...Md. Hossen & ors. Vs. Haji shamsunnahar Begum & ors., (Civil), 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 215
As such, the added plaintiff-petitioners have denied the interest of the Waqf Estate in the suit property by asserting their personal right in the same. Hence, their interest in the suit property is in conflict with that of the (surviving) plaintiff who claims herself as the sole Motwali (Manager) of the Waqf Estate, since another Motwali (plaintiff No. 2) has died. ...Md. Hossen & ors. Vs. Haji shamsunnahar Begum & ors., (Civil), 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 215
Therefore, the interest claimed by the petitioner being in clear conflict with that claimed by the plaintiff, these Md. Hossen and 4 other are not entitled to be added as coplaintiffs. ...Md. Hossen & ors. Vs. Haji shamsunnahar Begum & ors., (Civil), 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 215 ....View Full Judgment

Md. Hossen & ors. Vs. Haji shamsunnahar Begum & ors. 12 SCOB [2019] HCD 215
Rule 3 of Order 23

Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure: After the institution of the suit, it is open to the parties to compromise, adjust, or settle it by an agreement or compromise. The general principle is that all matters that can be decided in a suit can also be settled using compromise. Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code lays down that (i) where the court is satisfied that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement in writing and signed by the parties; or (ii) where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall record such agreement, compromise or satisfaction and pass a compromise decree accordingly. .....Sannyashi Mondal Vs. Nirmol Chandra Mondol & ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 172 ....View Full Judgment

Sannyashi Mondal Vs. Nirmol Chandra Mondol & ors 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 172
Order 3 Rule 1

Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. The proviso thereto makes it clear that the Court can, if it so desires, direct that such appearance shall be made by the party in person. .....Sannyashi Mondal Vs. Nirmol Chandra Mondol & ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 172 ....View Full Judgment

Sannyashi Mondal Vs. Nirmol Chandra Mondol & ors 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 172
Order 3 Rule 2

Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act; Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 85 of the Evidence Act; Section 120 of the Evidence Act:
Husband instead of wife or wife instead of husband shall be competent witness:
Learned Advocate for the respondent strongly argued that defendant No. 1 Sirajul himself did not come before the court to depose in support of his case and adverse presumption can be drawn under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for his non examination in the case despite being an important witness. A Power of Attorney given by defendant No. 1 to D.W. 1 through notary public bearing registration No. 135 of 2003 dated 28.06.2003 is kept in the record and under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 85 of the Evidence Act this power of attorney bears weight. Now question arises whether D.W. 1 being wife of defendant No. 1 holds the same status of defendant No. 1 while deposing in the suit. Question of adverse presumption shall not arise if DW 1 holds the same position. Section 120 of the Evidence Act provides that husband instead of wife or wife instead of husband shall be competent witness. So according to the facts and circumstances of the instant case section 120 shall prevail over section 114(g) of the Evidence Act and the question on adverse presumption as argued does not arise. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment

Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199
Order V, Rule 15 read with Order IX, rule 13

It is mandatory upon the Court to ex-amine the serving officer to ascertain as to whether the summons were duly served, or not.
In case allegation of non-service of summons upon the defendant/ opposite-party, as the case may be, the onus is upon the plaintiff/petitioner that the summons of the suit or the case was served upon the defendant/opposite-party.
The High Court Division held that the rule 19 provides for examination of serving officer with an endorsement that the Court shall verify from the deposition of serving officer whether the summons were served or not in a mandatory form. The word shall makes it clear as appearing in rule 19 of Order V that it is mandatory upon the Court to examine the serving officer to ascertain as to whether the summons were duly served, or not. There is no doubt summons may be served upon an adult member of the defendant family under the provisions of rule 15 of Order V of the Code as has been done in the instant case but both the courts below concurrently dis-believed that the summons was duly served upon the defendant. In case of allegation of non-service of summons upon the defendant/ opposite-party, as the case may be, the onus is upon the plaintiff/petitioner that the summons of the suit or the case was served upon the defendant/opposite-party. Moreover order V, rule 12 of the Code has provided that whenever it is practicable, service of summons shall be made upon the defendant herein opposite-party in person unless he has an agent empowered to accept the service, in which case service on such agent shall be sufficient. Therefore High Court Division sitting on a revisional jurisdiction without any important question of law cannot interfere into such reasonable findings of the courts below. Moriom Bewa wife of late Abdul Jabbar of Village- Nakshasa, Police Station- Poba, District- Rajshahi. -Vs.- Md. Ahshan Prang son of late Fazullah Prang and 7(seven) others (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 189 ....View Full Judgment

Moriom Bewa wife of late Abdul Jabbar of Village- Nakshasa, Police Station- Poba, District- Rajshahi. -Vs.- Md. Ahshan Prang son of late Fazullah Prang and 7(seven) others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 189
Order VI, Rule 15

Chapter-1, Rule 19 of the Civil Rules and Orders (CRO) read with Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 34 (1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 2003:
Filing the application under section 34 (1) of the Act, 2003 civil detention of judgment debtor is sought for by the decree holder applicant. As such, the Adalat has to dispose of it awarding civil detention or rejecting the prayer. Hence, the applicant needs to substantiate the facts in the application for determination by the Adalat. Thus, considering facts of the application, judicial determination has to make by the Adalat awarding civil imprisonment or not. Therefore, the Bank requires to file the application in accordance with Chapter-1, Rule 19 of the Civil Rules and Orders (CRO) read with Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But from the application (Annexure-C and C1) filed by the decree holder Bank, we do not find this compliance. In the circumstances, we are of the view that without verification or affidavit, putting signature at the top of the application alone is not enough to consider an application under section 34(1) of the Act, 2003. ...Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20 ....View Full Judgment

Md. Jahirul Hoque Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram & ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20
Order VII rule 11

The question of resjudicata and limitation raised in the application for rejecting the plaint and are mixed question of law and fact which can only be decided at trial on taking evidence.
The High Court Division observed that from the plain reading of the instant suit the High Court Division finds that the same clearly discloses the cause of action; the relief claimed is not undervalued; the plaint was not written upon paper insufficiently stamped; from the statement of the plaint it does not appear that the suit is barred by any law. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the instant suit is barred by resjudicata and also barred by limitation and the relieves claimed in the instant suit in substantially in issue in the former suit between the same parties. It has been well settled that the question of resjudicata and limitation raised in the application for rejecting the plaint and are mixed question of law and fact which can only be decided at trial on taking evidence. Md. Motaleb Hossain -Vs.- Md. Mozammel Hossain (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 1 ....View Full Judgment

Md. Motaleb Hossain -Vs.- Md. Mozammel Hossain 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 1
Order VII, Rule 3

Requirement of law is that the property should be identified by boundaries or numbers. When the plots are identified by numbers, boundaries are not necessary. The identifiable plot numbers having been given with total quantum of land against each plot in the schedule of plaint, there is no difficulty in identifying land of the plots. ...Dulal Krishna Basu Vs. Fakir Ziauddin and others, (Civil), 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 44 ....View Full Judgment

Dulal Krishna Basu Vs. Fakir Ziauddin and others 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 44
Order VII, Rule 11

The trial Court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure at any stage of the suit before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendants at any time before the conclusion of the trial. ...Rokeya Begum Bina & ors Vs. Habib Ahsan & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 127 ....View Full Judgment

Rokeya Begum Bina & ors Vs. Habib Ahsan & ors 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 127
Order VII, Rule 11

For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (b) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant. ...Rokeya Begum Bina & ors Vs. Habib Ahsan & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 127 ....View Full Judgment

Rokeya Begum Bina & ors Vs. Habib Ahsan & ors 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 127
Order IX, rule 13

Service of summons on a male number of the family would not constitute valid service unless the report of the process server contains a statement that there was no likelihood or the defendant who was absent at the time of service being not found at his residence with a reasonable time. Moriom Bewa wife of late Abdul Jabbar of Village- Nakshasa, Police Station- Poba, District- Rajshahi. -Vs.- Md. Ahshan Prang son of late Fazullah Prang and 7(seven) others (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 189 ....View Full Judgment

Moriom Bewa wife of late Abdul Jabbar of Village- Nakshasa, Police Station- Poba, District- Rajshahi. -Vs.- Md. Ahshan Prang son of late Fazullah Prang and 7(seven) others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 189
Order IX rule 13

Limitation Act, 1908
Section 15 And
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order IX rule 13
Pendency of a case for setting aside an ex-parte decree cannot extend the period of limitation for filing of execution case:
Application for execution of a final decree or order is to be made within 3 (three) years from the date mentioned in 2nd Column of Article 182 of the Limitation Act subject to some exceptions as detailed in the 3rd Column read with provisions of section 15 of the Act inasmuch as Article 182 makes no provision for fresh limitation from a final order passed on an application under Order IX rule 13 of the Code. In other words if no stay order or injunction is passed staying the operation of the decree or order under section 15 or no situation arises as per the 3rd Column of Article 182 the decree or order would keep open for execution and time would run from the date of final decree or order. A bare reading of Article 182 of the limitation Act also suggests that an application under order IX rule 13 of the code does not come within the meaning of applications mentioned in clause 5 of column 3 of Article 182 of the Limitation Act to save limitation. Accordingly, pendency of a case under Order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex-parte decree cannot extend the period of limitation for filing execution case. ...Md. Mohitur Rohman Chy & ors Vs. Md. Abdul Kuddus Miah & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 163 ....View Full Judgment

Md. Mohitur Rohman Chy & ors Vs. Md. Abdul Kuddus Miah & ors 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 163
Order VII, rule 11

Whether the petitioners are persons under the said Manjurul Alam and others being a question of fact is to be decided on evidence relating to transfer of title. Such question of fact cannot be decided on an application under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code. Besides, the land in CS Plots Number 85 and 69 was not the subject matter of the previous suit, but included in the present suit. We do not think that the learned trial Judge committed any error of law in rejecting the petitioner’s application. ...Tapan Chowdhury & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 49 ....View Full Judgment

Tapan Chowdhury & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 49
Order VII, rule 11

Objection regarding rejection of plaint to be raised before joining the issues: Even in case of proceedings of a suit without prior notice, where such notice is legally required, the objection must be raised before fling of written statement by the defendant concern. After joining the issues by filing written statement, settlement of all issues and completion of hearing, a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code especially when two other suits between the parties on the selfsame subject matter are pending in the same court and one of them is fixed for simultaneous hearing with the present suit. ...Chattogram Port Authority Vs. Md. Mehedi Hasan, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 34 ....View Full Judgment

Chattogram Port Authority Vs. Md. Mehedi Hasan, (Civil) 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 34
Order VII, rule 11

Objection regarding rejection of plaint to be raised before joining the issues:
Even in case of proceedings of a suit without prior notice, where such notice is legally required, the objection must be raised before fling of written statement by the defendant concern. After joining the issues by filing written statement, settlement of all issues and completion of hearing, a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code especially when two other suits between the parties on the selfsame subject matter are pending in the same court and one of them is fixed for simultaneous hearing with the present suit. ...Chattogram Port Authority Vs. Md. Mehedi Hasan, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 34 ....View Full Judgment

Chattogram Port Authority Vs. Md. Mehedi Hasan, (Civil) 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 34
Order XIV Rule 1

It is a settled principle of law and as per Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure that an issue which was not taken up earlier in the Courts below, cannot be taken up at a later stage before the superior Courts. ...Syed Aynul Akhter Vs. Sanjit Kumar Bhowmik & ors, (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 127 ....View Full Judgment

Syed Aynul Akhter Vs. Sanjit Kumar Bhowmik & ors 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 127
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;
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

Md. Akram Ali & ors. Vs. Khasru Miah & ors. 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 53
Order XXIII, Rule1

During the course of pendency of original proceedings in the Trial Court, the Court may permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one, when there is a formal defect in the suit or for any other reason as provided, but such a right is not available to the plaintiff when there is already a judgment against him as aforesaid manner. ...Mrs. Hurun Nahar & ors Vs Mozammel Haque & ors, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 37 ....View Full Judgment

Mrs. Hurun Nahar & ors Vs Mozammel Haque & ors 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 37
Order XXXVIII, Rule 5

Before issuing an Order of attachment before judgment the Court must be satisfied that the defendant has been trying to frustrate the effect of the decree that might be passed against him by disposing of the property or removing it from the jurisdiction of the Court. It means that the Court must be satisfied not only to the effect that the defendant trying to dispose of the property or remove the same from its jurisdiction but also this disposal or removal is with the object of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree that may be passed in Suit. This satisfaction, however, is to be judicial satisfaction and it must be based on some visible materials which are to be found in the Affidavit filed by the party or otherwise. But in the Impugned Order such satisfaction of the Court is totally absent, even not a single word has been written by the Court concerned why the attachment of the property before pronouncement of the judgment is necessary. In the absence of such satisfaction of the Court necessitating or warranting order of attachment has made the order wholly illegal and ineffective. ...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
Order XXXIX, Rule 1

Temporary Injunction
After institution of the suit, when it would appear to the Court that if the temporary injunction is not granted, the suit itself may be infructuous or great hardship and prejudice may cause to the party, then, in order to keep the subject matter of the suit intact or for the purpose of preserving the rights of the parties, temporary injunction may be granted for a limited period or till the disposal of the suit. The cardinal principles for granting temporary injunction are that the applicant must satisfy the Court that
(i) there is an arguable prima facie case,
(ii) balance of inconvenience is in favour of the applicant and
(iii) the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury not commensurable in monetary terms unless the other party is re-strained. Topcom Holdings Limited -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others (St. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 86 ....View Full Judgment

Topcom Holdings Limited -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 86
Order XL Rule 1

Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be invoked also in a partition suit due to “special circumstances such as danger to the property”. ...Kazi Helall Islam & ors Vs. Kazi Roksana Islam & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 167 ....View Full Judgment

Kazi Helall Islam & ors Vs. Kazi Roksana Islam & ors 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 167
Order XL Rule 1

As we have mentioned before there is a primafacie apprehension of danger to the property, which is apparent under the circumstances. Moreover, since the suit land is in possession and control of the defendant-appellants it is quite probable that pending final determination of the rights of the parties, the party in possession and control might abuse such possession and control and the sisters may be deprived of their rights. Alienation of mesne-profits which in this case are primarily the rents received by the defendants from the tenants in the disputed property may also result in wastage of the property and therefore entails a source of danger of alienation of the property before final determination of the rights of the parties to the Partition Suit. Upon such considerations we feel that the Court below judiciously and by exercising its discretion very correctly granted the prayer of the plaintiffs under Order 40 Rule 1 for appointment of receiver to the suit property. ...Kazi Helall Islam & ors Vs. Kazi Roksana Islam & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 167 ....View Full Judgment

Kazi Helall Islam & ors Vs. Kazi Roksana Islam & ors 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 167
Order XL Rule 1

The appellants had also submitted that the receiver is a third person and therefore he cannot be inducted into the affairs of a family dispute. Our finding upon this argument is that given that the receiver is a ‘third person’ in the literal sense, yet he is an officer of the Court and is appointed by the Court itself empowered under its discretionary power under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore the appointment of receiver cannot be challenged only upon the ground of his being a ‘third person’ if other circumstances exist and call for his appointment under special circumstances and as long as the Court grants the prayer for appointment of receiver correctly exercising its discretion, such appointment may not be called into question. ...Kazi Helall Islam & ors Vs. Kazi Roksana Islam & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 167 ....View Full Judgment

Kazi Helall Islam & ors Vs. Kazi Roksana Islam & ors 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 167
section 115(1)

The jurisdiction of the High Court Division while hearing a revision petition is purely discretionary and the discretion is to be exercised only when there is an error of law resulting in an error in the decision and by that error failure of justice has been occasioned and interference is called for the ends of justice and not otherwise. Error in the decision of the sub-ordinate Courts do not by itself justify interference in revision unless it is manifested that by the error substantial injustice has been rendered. The decision which is calculated to advance substantial justice though not strictly regular may not be interfered with in revision. ...Abul Kasem & anr Vs. Asfaque Ahmed & anr, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 93 ....View Full Judgment

Abul Kasem & anr Vs. Asfaque Ahmed & anr 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 93
section 115(1)

Power of revision is intended to be exercised with a view to sub-serve and not to defeat the ends of justice. The above principles of law, the High Curt Division is required to follow while adjudicating upon a matter in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here, it must not be overlooked that there is a lot of difference between a revision and appeal. An appeal confers a right on the aggrieved party to complain in the prescribed manner to the higher forum whereas the supervisory or revisional power has for its objects the right and responsibility of the higher forum to keep the sub-ordinate Courts within the bounds of law. ...Abul Kasem & anr Vs. Asfaque Ahmed & anr, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 93 ....View Full Judgment

Abul Kasem & anr Vs. Asfaque Ahmed & anr 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 93