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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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
|
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:
|
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.
|
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:
|
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.
|
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
|
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:
|
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;
|
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
|
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 |