Law Messenger (LM)

Registration Login

Judicial Dictionary

Title	Review
Details	Mere production of some documents at a belated stage cannot outweigh the evidences already on record which were thoroughly considered by all the Courts below. By providing some documents, the leave-petitioners tried to make a total departure from the written statement although they produced oral and documentary evidence in support of the defence case as already made out in the written statement. In the light of the findings made before, we are of the view that the petitioner could not make out any case for review as provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. ...Abdur Rahman =VS= Moti Lal Chowdhury, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 227] ....View Full Judgment It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case. The finding was recorded by the High Court in the writ petition that the writ petitioner (original appellant) failed to prove her actual possession on the land in question on the date of repeal, such finding could not have been examined de novo in review jurisdiction by the same Court like an Appellate Court on the facts and evidence. We concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court (Review Court) in the impugned order and find no merit in this appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. ...Asharfi Devi =VS= State of U.P., (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 29] ....View Full Judgment A suit may be brought in a Civil Court only upon the ground of fraud. In the instant case no ground of fraud has been alleged or established. There was no illegality in the judgement and decree of the trial Court which has been upheld by this Division. We do not find any merit in this review petition. ...Shohel Kamal Joha =VS= SK. Mohammad Mahmud, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 63] ....View Full Judgment The Appellate Division seriously erred in law, which error resulted in an error on the face of the record in that in view of the fact that when the project profile expressly provides a specific provision for absorption of the employees in the revenue budget and as per the said provision an employee is absorbed in revenue budget and has been serving under the revenue budget. The Appellate Division seriously erred in law, which error resulted in an error on the face of the record in that the Appellate Division failed to enter into any discussion on any of the review petitioners (Review Petition Nos.338, 339, 340, 341 and 342 of 2016). Accordingly, leave is granted in all the petitions. ...Sultana Zahid Parvin =VS= S.M. Fazlul Karim, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 67] ....View Full Judgment We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the view that the ends of justice would be best served if the appeal filed by the Government before the High Court Division is heard on merit. The order dated 12.06.2016 is set aside after reviewing the same. The judgment and order dated 21.04.2013 passed by the High Court Division is set aside and the delay of 643 days in preferring the appeal before the High Court Division is condoned. The High Court Division is directed to register F. A. T. No.571 of 2012 as First Appeal and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Samsuddin Monir Khan, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 141] ....View Full Judgment We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the view that the ends of justice would be best served if the appeal filed by the Government before the High Court Division is heard on merit. The order dated 12.06.2016 is set aside after reviewing the same. The judgment and order dated 21.04.2013 passed by the High Court Division is set aside and the delay of 643 days in preferring the appeal before the High Court Division is condoned. The High Court Division is directed to register F. A. T. No.571 of 2012 as First Appeal and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Samsuddin Monir Khan, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 141] ....View Full Judgment Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed on the ground that Miscellaneous Case No.40 of 1997 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed about 6 years after passing of the ex-parte decree dated 27.08.1991 in Title Suit No.347 of 1982 without any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay as such an application is to be filed within 30 days from the date of ex-parte decree or within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex-parte decree in question. The Miscellaneous Case was filed after a lapse of 11(eleven) months from the alleged date of knowledge without any application for condonation of delay and the same was accordingly held to be barred by limitation. We do not find any cogent reason to review the impugned judgment. .....RAJUK =VS= Momtaz Hasan Chowdhury, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 319] ....View Full Judgment Admittedly, it is not a case of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed. In the review application as many as 7(seven) grounds have been taken and all grounds relate to the factual aspect of the case. It is clear that the leave petition was dismissed considering the factual aspect of the case which was found against the defendant by all Courts and as already stated hereinbefore, the petitioner failed to pin point any ground for review within the meaning of Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the review application and as such, we find no reason to review the judgment and order passed by this Division dismissing the leave petition. .....Mozzammel Haque(Md.) =VS= Md. Abdus Salam, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 275] ....View Full Judgment The learned Advocate for the review petitioners though has made submissions trying to point out some error in the judgment under review but could not make out any ground for review of the said judgment and order. The grounds for review of any judgment and order has been enumerated in Order XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Advocate for the leave petitioners could not establish any of these grounds for review of the judgment and order in question. The pleas of the defendant-petitioners- that the High Court Division and also this Division did not consider at all the facts that the plaintiffs’ case that Kabir Ahmed died in the year 1970 has not been proved and that the plaintiffs could not prove the genuineness of their alleged title deeds- are not correct at all. This Division and also the High Court Division have considered both these defence pleas meticulously and come to a definite finding. There is no ground for review of the judgment and order in question and hence this review petition is dismissed. .....Jalalabad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.=VS=Mst. Roushan Jahan, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 261] ....View Full Judgment We do not find any new point or ground, as contemplated under order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which could not be found earlier by the petitioner and could not be placed before this Division at the time of dismissal of the leave petition. .....Abdul Wadud Mia (Md.) =VS= Najibunnessa, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 11] ....View Full Judgment Review matters are governed and regulated by the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 26 of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988. As a matter of practice and rules this court proceeds to review a judgment pronounced earlier by it upon an application for review by an aggrieved party. Prior to hearing a review petition the court has to be satisfied that grounds for review as mentioned in Order 26 of the said Supreme Court Rules exists. Reference may be made in this regard to the case of Mahbubur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mojibur Rahman Sikder, 37 DLR(AD)145. Grounds taken for review are not new and these grounds were agitated earlier by the respondent before this court and the same were answered while dismissing the leave petition. The respondent by filing the review petition merely sought for rehearing of the matter which is not permissible in law. We are of the view that this court upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is therefore no warrant in law to interfere with the same. .....GM, Postal Insurance Eastern Region =VS= A.B.M. Abu Taher, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 118] ....View Full Judgment This Division consistently held that review by no means is a re-hearing of the appeal. We are, therefore, of the view that in all these civil review petitions the grounds urged by the petitioners are nothing but the grounds taken into consideration and repelled in the leave Petitions. It is therefore not permissible to embark upon a reiteration of the same contentions as were advanced at the time of hearing of the leave petitions. We are of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by this Division in the above leave petitions. There is no legal ground in these civil review petitions for review of the impugned judgment and order passed by this Division in the civil petitions for leave to appeal. These civil review petitions are dismissed. .....Abdul Mazid Sarker(Md.) =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 367] ....View Full Judgment No new and relevant materials have been produced to substantiate the claim for review. The review petition is dismissed. .....Lancaster Export Service Ltd =VS= Forseti Group Inc. (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 240] ....View Full Judgment The defendant-petitioner got ample opportunity to agitate this ground before the courts below and also before this Division at the time of hearing of civil petition for leave to appeal, but he did not do so. Considering the above facts and circumstances we do not find any sufficient ground to review the judgment and order in question and hence this civil petition for review be dismissed. .....Mominul Islam(Md.) =VS= Md. Aminul Islam, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 412] ....View Full Judgment The High Court Division lost sight of the matter that the order of assessment of the goods under sub-article (3) of article 8 of the PSI Order,1999 is amenable to review as contained in article 9 of the PSI Order. Without exhausting the forum of review, the respondent of each of the appeals filed the writ petitions before the High Court Division. Since the respondents failed to exhaust the forum of review the writ petitions filed by each of the respondents before the High Court Division were not maintainable. .....Commissioner of Customs=VS=Excelsior Home Appliance Limited, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 331] ....View Full Judgment Review– Observation is expunged– While quashing the criminal proceeding this court observed that the period of occurrence in respect of the incident is hit by section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This observation is made through overlooking sub-section (1B) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The above observation is expunged. These petitions are disposed of with the above expunction and observations. .....Manzur Ahmed =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 205] ....View Full Judgment Review– Removing unauthorized constructions from the periphery of Lalbagh Fort– Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents are ready to vacate the houses if they are paid sufficient compensation. Learned Attorney General was present at the hearing of the matter. Learned Attorney General finds it difficult to refute the claim of the respondents. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the matter, we assess Tk.40,00,000/- (forty lacs) as compensation to be paid to the owners who are found to be in possession of the houses. We direct the Archeology Department to pay Tk.40,00,000/- (forty lacs) to the owners jointly within three months from the date receipt of the order and the owners shall apportion the said amount according to the area they are in possession. We direct the Archeology Department to evict the respondents on payment of such compensation forthwith. .....Adv. Manzill Murshid =VS= Haji Md. Abdul Hashem, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 31] ....View Full Judgment Review– In a review petition there is no scope for rehearing–Prayer for plaint amendment was regularly allowed or not, which it the High Court Division duly answered that we do not find this brings any change in the plaint– The finding of the High Court Division to the effect that “we do not find this brings any change in the plaint inasmuch as in the original plaint also. In the civil petition the only issue raised was as to whether the prayer for amendment was regularly allowed or not, which it appears the High Court Division duly answered. Further the grounds as raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner may be agitated at the time of hearing of the suit. In a review petition there is no scope for rehearing. The review petition is dismissed. .....S.K. Khalilur Rahman =VS= Mrs. Meherun Nesa, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 340] ....View Full Judgment From the judgement sought to be reviewed that the points raised in the review petition were argued and dealt with by this Division. Hence we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We do not find any error in the judgement of this Division, and accordingly, we find no merit in the instant review petition, which is accordingly dismissed. .....Shah Alam(Md.) =VS= Gomati Water Development Division, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 195] ....View Full Judgment The learned counsel fails to point out any error of law in the judgment of this court. We find no merit in these petitions. .....Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 584] ....View Full Judgment The petitioner was convicted and awarded death sentence by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) Saket Court Complex New Delhi. Delhi High Court confirmed the death reference and dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence. Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 13.03.2014, Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner which appeal was dismissed by this Court on 05.05.2017. Now, this application is filed to review the judgment dated 05.05.2017 dismissing the Criminal Appeal of the petitioner. This court had cautiously gone into and revisited the entire evidences on record and after being fully satisfied had dismissed the appeal. By the review petition the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on merits of the case by pointing out certain evidences and materials which were on the record and were already looked into by the trial court, High court and this Court as well. Review petition does not disclose any ground, on which review jurisdiction can be exercised by this Court under Article 137 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme court Rules, 2013. Consequently, the review petition is rejected. .....Mukesh =VS= State of NCT of Delhi, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 101] ....View Full Judgment A Division Bench of the High Court Division hearing the criminal miscellaneous case by judgment and order dated 17.02.2009 made the Rule absolute and quashed the proceedings of Violation Miscellaneous Case No.234 of 2008 arising out of B.L.L. Case No.335 of 2008 pending before the First Labour Court, Dhaka. Against the judgment and order of the High Court Division, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.233 of 2009 before this Division. This Division on hearing the leave petition by judgment and order dated 8th December, 2009 dismissed the leave petition, against which the instant review petition has been filed. In the review petition, the petitioner has failed to show that the view taken by this Division endorsing the view of the High Court Division was the result of an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the same as provided in Order XXVI, rule 1 of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988. It further appears that the grounds taken in the review petition were also taken in the leave petition but those not being relevant were not considered. The review petition accordingly, the same is dismissed. .....Nur-e-Alam =VS= Grameen Phone Limited, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 425] ....View Full Judgment Review– Where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice– We reiterated that a review cannot be equated with an appeal. It does not confer a right in any way to a litigant. The Appellate Division unequivocally expressed that it is now well settled that a review of an earlier order is not permissible unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines it's soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Division observed that a review of judgment is a serious step and the Courts are reluctant to invoke their power except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error have crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Power of review is not an inherent power - it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and that despite there being no provision in the Act or the Rules for review from the judgment of the Appellate Division on appeal, by fiction of law a review is maintainable from the judgment of the Appellate Division subject to the condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice. .....Muhammad Kamaruzzaman =VS= Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 392] ....View Full Judgment Review signifies reappraisal: a new appraisal or evaluation. It is a judicial reexamination of the proceedings of a court. Any order passed on such review is without jurisdiction when an appeal or revision against the decision itself was pending before a superior authority and the law prohibits reviewing when an appeal or revision is pending. Question of knowledge or lack of knowledge about pendency of appeal or revision irrelevant, the bar to review being complete. …..Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs. C.S. Commissioner, Lahore (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 655] Right of review can be exercised only in case of excusable failure on the part of a party to bring to the notice of court new and important matters of error. ….. [Abu Said Md. Idris Ali Sikder vs. Monoranjan Bagchi (1970) 22 DLR 214] See, Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908). Review– The decisions and steps taken for protection of the villages from the erosion of the river Meghna are totally executive decisions of the Government. The policy decision of the Government may be interfered with only when the same is illegal or unconstitutional– The decisions and steps taken for protection of the villages from the erosion of the river Meghna are totally executive decisions of the Government. The policy decision of the Government may be interfered with only when the same is illegal or unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary in the wednesbury sense. It is the duty of the policy maker to decide how a village would be protected from erosion of a river and what would be the acceptable proposal for embankment works and what would be the proper way of implementation of proposal of embankment considering the financial capacity of the Government. The instant case, in fact, the High Court Division, ignoring constitutional limitation directed the executive to sanction money instead of wheat for protection of the above mentioned villages from erosion of the river Megna. Our considered view is that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division was unlawful. The review petition is disposed of. …Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Salim Khan (Md.), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 236] ....View Full Judgment Review– Subject to the law and the practice of the court, the court may, either of its own motion or on the application of a party to a proceeding, review it's judgment or order in a Civil proceeding on grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a Criminal Proceeding on the ground on an error apparent on the face of the record." A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error apparent on the face of the record. ...Major Md. Bazlul Huda (Artillery) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 581] ....View Full Judgment

Title

Review

Details

Mere production of some documents at a belated stage cannot outweigh the evidences already on record which were thoroughly considered by all the Courts below. By providing some documents, the leave-petitioners tried to make a total departure from the written statement although they produced oral and documentary evidence in support of the defence case as already made out in the written statement.
In the light of the findings made before, we are of the view that the petitioner could not make out any case for review as provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. ...Abdur Rahman =VS= Moti Lal Chowdhury, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 227] ....View Full Judgment

It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case. The finding was recorded by the High Court in the writ petition that the writ petitioner (original appellant) failed to prove her actual possession on the land in question on the date of repeal, such finding could not have been examined de novo in review jurisdiction by the same Court like an Appellate Court on the facts and evidence. We concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court (Review Court) in the impugned order and find no merit in this appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. ...Asharfi Devi =VS= State of U.P., (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 29] ....View Full Judgment

A suit may be brought in a Civil Court only upon the ground of fraud. In the instant case no ground of fraud has been alleged or established. There was no illegality in the judgement and decree of the trial Court which has been upheld by this Division. We do not find any merit in this review petition. ...Shohel Kamal Joha =VS= SK. Mohammad Mahmud, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 63] ....View Full Judgment

The Appellate Division seriously erred in law, which error resulted in an error on the face of the record in that in view of the fact that when the project profile expressly provides a specific provision for absorption of the employees in the revenue budget and as per the said provision an employee is absorbed in revenue budget and has been serving under the revenue budget. The Appellate Division seriously erred in law, which error resulted in an error on the face of the record in that the Appellate Division failed to enter into any discussion on any of the review petitioners (Review Petition Nos.338, 339, 340, 341 and 342 of 2016). Accordingly, leave is granted in all the petitions. ...Sultana Zahid Parvin =VS= S.M. Fazlul Karim, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 67] ....View Full Judgment

We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the view that the ends of justice would be best served if the appeal filed by the Government before the High Court Division is heard on merit. The order dated 12.06.2016 is set aside after reviewing the same. The judgment and order dated 21.04.2013 passed by the High Court Division is set aside and the delay of 643 days in preferring the appeal before the High Court Division is condoned. The High Court Division is directed to register F. A. T. No.571 of 2012 as First Appeal and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Samsuddin Monir Khan, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 141] ....View Full Judgment

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed on the ground that Miscellaneous Case No.40 of 1997 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed about 6 years after passing of the ex-parte decree dated 27.08.1991 in Title Suit No.347 of 1982 without any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay as such an application is to be filed within 30 days from the date of ex-parte decree or within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex-parte decree in question. The Miscellaneous Case was filed after a lapse of 11(eleven) months from the alleged date of knowledge without any application for condonation of delay and the same was accordingly held to be barred by limitation. We do not find any cogent reason to review the impugned judgment. .....RAJUK =VS= Momtaz Hasan Chowdhury, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 319] ....View Full Judgment

Admittedly, it is not a case of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed. In the review application as many as 7(seven) grounds have been taken and all grounds relate to the factual aspect of the case. It is clear that the leave petition was dismissed considering the factual aspect of the case which was found against the defendant by all Courts and as already stated hereinbefore, the petitioner failed to pin point any ground for review within the meaning of Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the review application and as such, we find no reason to review the judgment and order passed by this Division dismissing the leave petition. .....Mozzammel Haque(Md.) =VS= Md. Abdus Salam, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 275] ....View Full Judgment

The learned Advocate for the review petitioners though has made submissions trying to point out some error in the judgment under review but could not make out any ground for review of the said judgment and order. The grounds for review of any judgment and order has been enumerated in Order XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Advocate for the leave petitioners could not establish any of these grounds for review of the judgment and order in question. The pleas of the defendant-petitioners- that the High Court Division and also this Division did not consider at all the facts that the plaintiffs’ case that Kabir Ahmed died in the year 1970 has not been proved and that the plaintiffs could not prove the genuineness of their alleged title deeds- are not correct at all. This Division and also the High Court Division have considered both these defence pleas meticulously and come to a definite finding. There is no ground for review of the judgment and order in question and hence this review petition is dismissed. .....Jalalabad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.=VS=Mst. Roushan Jahan, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 261] ....View Full Judgment

We do not find any new point or ground, as contemplated under order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which could not be found earlier by the petitioner and could not be placed before this Division at the time of dismissal of the leave petition. .....Abdul Wadud Mia (Md.) =VS= Najibunnessa, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 11] ....View Full Judgment

Review matters are governed and regulated by the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 26 of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988. As a matter of practice and rules this court proceeds to review a judgment pronounced earlier by it upon an application for review by an aggrieved party. Prior to hearing a review petition the court has to be satisfied that grounds for review as mentioned in Order 26 of the said Supreme Court Rules exists. Reference may be made in this regard to the case of Mahbubur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mojibur Rahman Sikder, 37 DLR(AD)145. Grounds taken for review are not new and these grounds were agitated earlier by the respondent before this court and the same were answered while dismissing the leave petition. The respondent by filing the review petition merely sought for rehearing of the matter which is not permissible in law. We are of the view that this court upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is therefore no warrant in law to interfere with the same. .....GM, Postal Insurance Eastern Region =VS= A.B.M. Abu Taher, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 118] ....View Full Judgment

This Division consistently held that review by no means is a re-hearing of the appeal. We are, therefore, of the view that in all these civil review petitions the grounds urged by the petitioners are nothing but the grounds taken into consideration and repelled in the leave Petitions. It is therefore not permissible to embark upon a reiteration of the same contentions as were advanced at the time of hearing of the leave petitions. We are of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by this Division in the above leave petitions. There is no legal ground in these civil review petitions for review of the impugned judgment and order passed by this Division in the civil petitions for leave to appeal. These civil review petitions are dismissed. .....Abdul Mazid Sarker(Md.) =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 367] ....View Full Judgment

No new and relevant materials have been produced to substantiate the claim for review. The review petition is dismissed. .....Lancaster Export Service Ltd =VS= Forseti Group Inc. (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 240] ....View Full Judgment

The defendant-petitioner got ample opportunity to agitate this ground before the courts below and also before this Division at the time of hearing of civil petition for leave to appeal, but he did not do so. Considering the above facts and circumstances we do not find any sufficient ground to review the judgment and order in question and hence this civil petition for review be dismissed. .....Mominul Islam(Md.) =VS= Md. Aminul Islam, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 412] ....View Full Judgment

The High Court Division lost sight of the matter that the order of assessment of the goods under sub-article (3) of article 8 of the PSI Order,1999 is amenable to review as contained in article 9 of the PSI Order. Without exhausting the forum of review, the respondent of each of the appeals filed the writ petitions before the High Court Division. Since the respondents failed to exhaust the forum of review the writ petitions filed by each of the respondents before the High Court Division were not maintainable. .....Commissioner of Customs=VS=Excelsior Home Appliance Limited, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 331] ....View Full Judgment

Review– Observation is expunged–
While quashing the criminal proceeding this court observed that the period of occurrence in respect of the incident is hit by section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This observation is made through overlooking sub-section (1B) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The above observation is expunged. These petitions are disposed of with the above expunction and observations. .....Manzur Ahmed =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 205] ....View Full Judgment

Review– Removing unauthorized constructions from the periphery of Lalbagh Fort–
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents are ready to vacate the houses if they are paid sufficient compensation. Learned Attorney General was present at the hearing of the matter. Learned Attorney General finds it difficult to refute the claim of the respondents. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the matter, we assess Tk.40,00,000/- (forty lacs) as compensation to be paid to the owners who are found to be in possession of the houses. We direct the Archeology Department to pay Tk.40,00,000/- (forty lacs) to the owners jointly within three months from the date receipt of the order and the owners shall apportion the said amount according to the area they are in possession. We direct the Archeology Department to evict the respondents on payment of such compensation forthwith. .....Adv. Manzill Murshid =VS= Haji Md. Abdul Hashem, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 31] ....View Full Judgment

Review– In a review petition there is no scope for rehearing–Prayer for plaint amendment was regularly allowed or not, which it the High Court Division duly answered that we do not find this brings any change in the plaint– The finding of the High Court Division to the effect that “we do not find this brings any change in the plaint inasmuch as in the original plaint also. In the civil petition the only issue raised was as to whether the prayer for amendment was regularly allowed or not, which it appears the High Court Division duly answered. Further the grounds as raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner may be agitated at the time of hearing of the suit. In a review petition there is no scope for rehearing. The review petition is dismissed. .....S.K. Khalilur Rahman =VS= Mrs. Meherun Nesa, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 340] ....View Full Judgment

From the judgement sought to be reviewed that the points raised in the review petition were argued and dealt with by this Division. Hence we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We do not find any error in the judgement of this Division, and accordingly, we find no merit in the instant review petition, which is accordingly dismissed. .....Shah Alam(Md.) =VS= Gomati Water Development Division, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 195] ....View Full Judgment

The learned counsel fails to point out any error of law in the judgment of this court. We find no merit in these petitions. .....Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 584] ....View Full Judgment

The petitioner was convicted and awarded death sentence by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) Saket Court Complex New Delhi. Delhi High Court confirmed the death reference and dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence. Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 13.03.2014, Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner which appeal was dismissed by this Court on 05.05.2017. Now, this application is filed to review the judgment dated 05.05.2017 dismissing the Criminal Appeal of the petitioner. This court had cautiously gone into and revisited the entire evidences on record and after being fully satisfied had dismissed the appeal. By the review petition the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on merits of the case by pointing out certain evidences and materials which were on the record and were already looked into by the trial court, High court and this Court as well. Review petition does not disclose any ground, on which review jurisdiction can be exercised by this Court under Article 137 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme court Rules, 2013. Consequently, the review petition is rejected. .....Mukesh =VS= State of NCT of Delhi, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 101] ....View Full Judgment

A Division Bench of the High Court Division hearing the criminal miscellaneous case by judgment and order dated 17.02.2009 made the Rule absolute and quashed the proceedings of Violation Miscellaneous Case No.234 of 2008 arising out of B.L.L. Case No.335 of 2008 pending before the First Labour Court, Dhaka. Against the judgment and order of the High Court Division, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.233 of 2009 before this Division. This Division on hearing the leave petition by judgment and order dated 8th December, 2009 dismissed the leave petition, against which the instant review petition has been filed. In the review petition, the petitioner has failed to show that the view taken by this Division endorsing the view of the High Court Division was the result of an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the same as provided in Order XXVI, rule 1 of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988. It further appears that the grounds taken in the review petition were also taken in the leave petition but those not being relevant were not considered. The review petition accordingly, the same is dismissed. .....Nur-e-Alam =VS= Grameen Phone Limited, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 425] ....View Full Judgment

Review– Where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice–
We reiterated that a review cannot be equated with an appeal. It does not confer a right in any way to a litigant. The Appellate Division unequivocally expressed that it is now well settled that a review of an earlier order is not permissible unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines it's soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Division observed that a review of judgment is a serious step and the Courts are reluctant to invoke their power except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error have crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Power of review is not an inherent power - it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and that despite there being no provision in the Act or the Rules for review from the judgment of the Appellate Division on appeal, by fiction of law a review is maintainable from the judgment of the Appellate Division subject to the condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice. .....Muhammad Kamaruzzaman =VS= Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 392] ....View Full Judgment

Review signifies reappraisal: a new appraisal or evaluation. It is a judicial reexamination of the proceedings of a court. Any order passed on such review is without jurisdiction when an appeal or revision against the decision itself was pending before a superior authority and the law prohibits reviewing when an appeal or revision is pending. Question of knowledge or lack of knowledge about pendency of appeal or revision irrelevant, the bar to review being complete. …..Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din vs. C.S. Commissioner, Lahore (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 655]
Right of review can be exercised only in case of excusable failure on the part of a party to bring to the notice of court new and important matters of error. ….. [Abu Said Md. Idris Ali Sikder vs. Monoranjan Bagchi (1970) 22 DLR 214]
See, Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908).

Review– The decisions and steps taken for protection of the villages from the erosion of the river Meghna are totally executive decisions of the Government. The policy decision of the Government may be interfered with only when the same is illegal or unconstitutional–
The decisions and steps taken for protection of the villages from the erosion of the river Meghna are totally executive decisions of the Government. The policy decision of the Government may be interfered with only when the same is illegal or unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary in the wednesbury sense. It is the duty of the policy maker to decide how a village would be protected from erosion of a river and what would be the acceptable proposal for embankment works and what would be the proper way of implementation of proposal of embankment considering the financial capacity of the Government.
The instant case, in fact, the High Court Division, ignoring constitutional limitation directed the executive to sanction money instead of wheat for protection of the above mentioned villages from erosion of the river Megna. Our considered view is that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division was unlawful. The review petition is disposed of. …Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Salim Khan (Md.), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 236] ....View Full Judgment

Review– Subject to the law and the practice of the court, the court may, either of its own motion or on the application of a party to a proceeding, review it's judgment or order in a Civil proceeding on grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a Criminal Proceeding on the ground on an error apparent on the face of the record."
A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error apparent on the face of the record. ...Major Md. Bazlul Huda (Artillery) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 581] ....View Full Judgment