Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115-
Since these questions had been decided finally by the Appellate Court they could not be reopened and reagitated in revision unless it is shown that the findings had not been made on due consideration of all material evidence according to established principles of assessment of evidence.
Hajee Abdus Sattar vs Mahiuddin 38 DLR (AD) 97.
Section 115-
High Court Division's exercise of its power under Section 115 when resorted to-This Court must exercise the power of revision within the tenor of the law and not hearing the matter as a second appeal. It is thus a question of any irregularity or illegality committed by the court that need be cured in the exercise of the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the courts below came to an illegal finding as to the relationship between the petitioner and the Managing Committee which was that of a master and servant.
Question of relationship between master and servant is one of fact-But if a decision as to such relationship has been arrived at on misreading of evidence or document, it becomes a question of law.
Sarder Ahmed Ali vs GM Ali Boksh 37 DLR 7.
Section 115-
Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Division- To exercise that power in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code there must be no provision for appeal to the High Court Division against the decision by any Subordinate Court.
Md Salim vs Zaker Ahmed 39 DLR 306.
Section 115-
A finding based on misreading or misconstruction of evidence can be reversed in revision under Section 115, CPC. No distinction has been made in Section 115(1), CPC between the order or orders of remand and decree and this court may pass any order as it thinks fit in revision. It is to be maintained that it is an established principle of law that if a finding of fact is based on misreading and misconstruction of the evidence on record or is contrary to the evidence on record it may be reversed in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ambia Khatun vs Serajul Islam 39 DLR 287.
Section 115-
Finding of fact can be interfered with. The crux of the instant case is whether the appellant was born of any legally married wife of Amir Ali and if the answer is in the negative his claim to sonship shall fail straight away, and the acknowledgement of Amir Ali will be of no avail and the presumption as to legitimacy raised by the acknowledgement shall stand rebutted. It is only to rebut this presumption that the suit has been brought. By a concurrent finding the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court held that there was no woman like Monowara Begum but she was invented for the purpose of the suit and that Amir had no wife named Monowara Begum.
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan 38 DLR (AD) 133.
Section 115-
Now it is to be seen whether a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC can interfere with this finding. A finding of fact is immune from revision unless it is shown that the finding is based on gross misreading of evidence or non-consideration of material evidence or it has been founded on misconception or misapplication of law or on misinterpretation of any material document or otherwise it is perverse being contrary to evidence on record.
Khorshed Alam vs Amir Sultan 38 DLR (AD) 133.
Section 115-Provisions of Section 115 attracted in case of irregular exercise or nonexercise of jurisdiction alone. Pakistan Supreme Court in a series of decisions reminded the High Court of the scope in second appeal under section 100 and further the Privy Council in number of decisions set out the distinction between sections 100 and 115. The latter is attracted in the case of jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or nonexercise of it or the illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusion of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. Valakrishna Unayar vs Vasudeva Aiyar 22 CWN 50 (PC).
Abdul Mannan Khan vs Bangladesh 38 DLR (AD) 201.
Section 115-
Privy Council's ruling that lower court's decision erroneous on fact and law-No interference called for.
Abdul Mannan Khan vs Bangladesh 38 DLR (AD) 201.
Section 115-
The very words "an error apparent on the face of the record" clearly show that the error must be such which can be detected or noticed without any lengthy argument.
No error could be said to be apparent on the face of record if it was not self-evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it.
Abdul Mannan Khan vs Bangladesh 38 DLR (AD) 201.
Section 115-
Jurisdiction-Court's jurisdiction not exercisable over executive action when prohibited by law-But court can prove whether executive acted within the authority permitted.
Abdul Mannan Khan vs Bangladesh 38 DLR (AD) 201.
Section 115-
"The Civil Court cannot sit on the judgment over the decisions of the Revenue Officers if they have acted in exercise of their jurisdiction."
Abdul Mannan Khan vs Bangladesh 38 DLR (AD) 201.
Section 115-
Concurrent finding of fact supports the plaintiffs case that Salimabad hat sits on Tuesday and Friday …. This cannot be interfered with.
Abdul Mannan Khan vs Bangladesh 38 DLR (AD) 201.
Section 115-
Concurrent finding of fact was upset by the High Court Division which held that decision of the local authority cannot be challenged-This view cannot be supported.
The High Court Division in revisional jurisdiction disturbed the finding of fact since "there are errors apparent on the face of record." The concurrent finding of fact was upset in the revisional jurisdiction. Rule as to concurrent finding of fact is not so rigid that it might not be departed from if such a state of things existed as facts appearing from some undisputed document which are completely destructive of the finding of fact by the Courts below.
Abdul Mannan Khan vs Bangladesh 38 DLR (AD) 201.
Section 115-
High Court Division can rectify any error of the courts below suo motu coming to its notice.
Under the provisions of Section 115 CPC the High Court Division can rectify the error of law in a matter which has come to its notice or suo motu where the impugned order has been passed by a court. subordinate to the High Court Division in which no appeal lies thereto.
In this case the order allowing the plaintiff to introduce a new story in his deposition without amending the plaint is an illegality and violative of provisions of Order VI, rule 7 CPC. The order was passed by the learned Munsif and there is no appeal provided for before the High Court Division under CPC against the said portion of the order. Therefore, in view of the power conferred by Section 115 CPC this court is competent to exercise the power and rectify the error of law committed by the learned Munsif in passing that portion in the said order. This view also finds support in the case of Ashwini Kumar Karmakar and others vs Hari Mohan and others reported in 36 DLR (AD) 1.
Ranjit Kumar Rakshit vs Sudhir Kumar Chowdhury 38 DLR 39.
Section 115-
Time for suit for specific performance of contract is 3 years from the date of refusal. The High Court Division certainly in a proper and fit case can set aside the finding of fact arrived at by the court of appeal below, more so when the said finding is contrary to the finding of the Trial Court and arrived at without adverting to the reasoning that weighed with the trial Court.
Monindra Mohan Kar vs Ranadhir Datta 38 DLR 240.
Section 115-
Question of maintainability of the appeal though not raised in the Appellate Court below, can be raised in the Revisional Court as it is a question of law-Revisional Court can interfere into an illegal order in the interest of justice.
Ayezuddin Sheikh vs Abdul Karim Sheikh 42 DLR 154.
Section 115—
Estoppel – As long as the High Court Division's judgment is not appealed against or its findings not set aside on any ground whatsoever, the third party petitioner is estopped from filing and maintaining any application for being added as a party to suit concerning the abandoned property in question and claiming independent title.
Golam Morshed vs Mrs Farhad Jahan 42 DLR 223.
Section 115—
The Criminal Court's finding of possession is not admissible in evidence in a civil suit.
Mamud Raja Bhuiya vs Md Lal Miah 40 DLR 271.
Section 115—
-This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can cure a failure of justice occasioned by a wrong view of law taken by Courts below.
Asgar Ali vs Addi Deputy Commissioner 40 DLR 157.
Section 115—
Scope of Section 115 CPCMere error of law is not a ground for revision.
Trading Corporation of Bangladesh vs Syed Sajeduzzaman 40 DLR 406.
Section 115-
Even if impugned decree suffers from error of law, it has not occasioned any failure of justice.
Trading Corporation of Bangladesh vs Syed Sajeduzzaman 40 DLR 406.
Section 115—
Interference with finding of fact-finding based on due consideration of evidence was beyond the scope of revisional Court to interfere with.
Md Jashimuddin Kanchan vs Md Ali Ashraf 42 DLR (AD) 289.
Section 115-
Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable in respect of the judgment passed by the Arbitration Appellate Tribunal. At the outset it is considered as to whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable or not. A reference to section 34(3)(4) of the Ordinance shows that an Arbitration Appellate Tribunal shall consist of a Member who shall be appointed by the Government from amongst persons who are or have been District Judges and the decision of the Arbitration Appellate Tribunal shall be final.
Khaled Akbar vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 66.
Section 115—
An Election Tribunal being not a Civil Court is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Division.
Lastly, since the Election Tribunals are not civil Courts they are also not amenable to the revisionaljurisdiction of the High Court Division. This view was also taken in the case reported in 38 DLR 262.
Mahmud Hossain vs Sayeb Ali & ors 41DLR44.
Section 115—
The High Court Division is not bound to interfere merely because the conditions of Section 115 have been satisfied, but this discretionary power would be exercised judicially to interfere only when ends of justice demand it.
Zehad Ali vs Kharshed Ahmed 41 DLR 336.
Section 115—
High Court Division cannot disturb the findings of the Court of Appeal on question of fact in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
AKM Ruhul Amin vs (All-haj) Abdul Latif 41 DLR 206.
Section 115—
Power to add a party is not open to revision unless the order is contrary to legal principles governing the exercise of such discretion.
The power to add a party is discretionary and unless that power was exercised arbitrarily or fancifully it cannot be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even an improper or a wrong exercise of discretion is not open to revision, unless the order is contrary to legal principles governing the exercise of such discretion, or the court has acted perversely.
Ishaq Hossain Chowdhury vs Mrs Shamsun Nessa Begum 41DLR22.
Section 115—
Question of possession of disputed land and that of payment of rent after the alleged auction-sale having not .been resolved by Courts below, it has occasioned a total failure of justice.
Sourja Bala Devi vs Habibullah Sheikh 41DLR464.
Section 115—
Non-consideration of material evidence and arriving at a decision based on no evidence resulted in an error in the Appellate Court's decision occasioning a failure of justice.
Haji Keramat Ali Master vs Lehaj Uddin Talukder 41DLR447.
Section 115—
Section 115 is a discretionary jurisdiction of the Court-The present petitioner has not suffered any hardship or prejudice by a simple order of withdrawal of the appeal from the Court of the 5th Additional District Judge to the Court of the District Judge. Dhaka-No interference is called for.
Haroon Malik (Md) vs National Bank Ltd 42 DLR 283.
Section 115—
Jurisdictional defect in the judgement is not itself a ground for revision unless such defect has resulted in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice. Abul Kashem Md Lutfullah vs Shaiful Islam (Bumb) 46 DLR 563.
Section 115—
Gross professional negligence causing serious injury cannot be a ground for mandatory injunction to get back possession of the disputed property i.e. a cinema hall. For the loss alleged, the petitioners' remedy lies elsewhere.
Hossen & Co Ltd and others vs Bangladesh Shipla Bank and others 46 DLR 702.
Section 115—
When the High Court Division is in seisin of the matter to consider the legality of the order of status quo vacated by the District Judge during the pendency of the appeal thereon, the latter should not have sent the appeal back on remand to the trial Court on the reasoning that as the injunction touches the merits of the suit, the same should be disposed at the time of its final hearing.
Wahid Khatun Bibi vs Khurshid Alam Mia 46 DLR 279.
Section 115—
Since the High Court Division can suo motu enter into the question of law in exercise of its revisional power, the application for treating the memorandum of appeal as an application under Section 115 CPC is allowed.
Israil Hossain vs Himalaya Jee & Cold Storage Ltd 46 DLR 44.
Section 115—
High Court Division set aside the finding of the Appellate Court on a reappraisal of the evidence and thereby committed an error in law when there was no misreading of evidence and misconstruction of the document.
Shamser Ali Md vs Mosammat Kafizan Bibi 44 DLR (AD) 231.
Section 115—
Granting of reliefs summarily on a revisional application without issuing any rule on the opposite party is neither legal nor fair.
Abdul Wahab vs Ali Ahmed and another 44 DLR (AD) 55.
Section 115—
Revisional jurisdiction- The Appellate Court having given the finding that there was no service of summons in the suit, it was no function of the High Court Division to sit in appeal over this finding while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The High Court Division was only concerned with the question as to whether the appellate Court, in giving that finding, committed any error of law resulting in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice.
Bangladesh vs Chand Mia & others 44 DLR (AD) 98.
Section 115—
Revisional powers-Plea of exceeding jurisdiction by entertaining new facts given in the supplementary affidavit- The supplementary affidavit gave explanation (as to delay in filing the appeal) with further and detailed facts. High Court Division pointed out the omissions made by the District Judge in considering the prayer for condonation of delay and found reasonable explanation therefor. This is within the limits of the court's revisional power.
Mohammad Ali & others vs Circle Officer (Revenue) Dhaka &others 44 DLR (AD) 15.
Section 115—
Finding though concurrent is open to interference if it is based on no evidence.
Kanak Mala vs Md Safiuddin 43 DLR 38.
Section 115—
Taking revision in a matter in which appeal lies-High Court Division assuming revisional jurisdiction taking into consideration circumstances of exceptional nature, in a matter in which appeal lies, cannot be accepted as a general principle for determining the point as to whether revision application lies to the High Court Division against the order from which appeal lies before the District Judge. The present case having arisen from the order against which appeal has been provided, revision is not maintainable, no matter whether the appeal has been provided for either before the District Judge or the High Court Division.
Mansur Ali vs Janata Bank 43 DLR 394.
Section 115—
Revision-Scope of revision after amendment of Section 115 CPC in 1983- No order of the Court below can be revised unless error of law committed by the Court below resulted in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice. Attempt on the part of the defendant-petitioners to revise the valuation of the suit by hearing issue No. 2 regarding valuation was nothing but dilatory tactics when trial of the suit had already started taking up all the issues including the issue regarding valuation. The impugned order accepting the valuation as put by the plaintiff did not occasion any failure of justice and, as such, does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Abul (Md) Kashem vs Ashrafuzzaman 43 DLR 596.
Section 115–
Decree of dismissal could not be set aside in the rehearing case by anybody other than the plaintiff. If the Court embarks upon deciding the matter at the instance of one who was not a party to the suit, then certainly that would go to the root touching the merits of the case causing prejudice to the defendant.
Shaikh Shamsuddin Ahmed vs Nazmul Huda 45 DLR 371.
Section 115—
Ex parte disposal of revision case when not sustainable-The record of the case was re-called to the permanent seat of the Court from Barisal Bench and posted for hearing at the instance of the petitioner. It was not a matter of fairplay not to notify the opposite party about the hearing and, as such, the judgement passed ex parte making the Rule absolute is liable to be recalled.
Malik Mohammad Amin Anowar vs Shahjahan 45 DLR 150.
Section 115–
0bjection as to limitation having not been raised in the written statement or during the hearing of the case either at the trial or the Appellate Court or before the High Court Division except at the last stage, such objection is not maintainable in law.
Kalipada Saha vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 327.
Section 115–
In disturbing the concurrent judgements of the courts below, it was imperative on the part of the High Court Division to reverse the concurrent finding and to hold that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for injunction.
Haji Nurul Alam @ Haji Nurul Alam Sawdagar vs Al-Ha} Abdus Sobhan Sawdagar Wakf Estate and another 45 DLR (AD) 168.
Section 115–
The trial Court committed a patent illegality in making the ex parte decree on a date on which the suit was not fixed for hearing ex parte and for this reason the decree is liable to be set aside.
Hazeran Nessa vs Nasiruddin Mahmood 44 DLR 28.
Section 115–
Revisional Court will be slow in interfering with the judgment of the court of appeal below. Interference may be called for ifthe judgment of the court of appeal is not based on due consideration of evidence and is the product of surmises and conjectures.
Janab Ali (Md) vs Moslemuddin Md 44 DLR 291.
Section 115–
Judgment by appellate Court when not sustainable-Where such a court reverses the decision of a primary court, the law imposes upon the appellate Court an imperative duty of giving an adequate judgment. In this view the appellate Court judgment being a slipshod one occasioned failure of justice. The appeal was therefore remanded to the appellate Court for decision after full-fledged discussion of the evidence on record.
Abdus Subhan vs Abdul Maleque 44 DLR 94.
Section 115–
Remand-When revisional Court need not pass order of remand-The revisional application could be disposed of by the High Court Division without sending the case on remand to the trial Court. Both oral and documentary evidence having been available on record there was no necessity for the remand as ordered by the High Court Division.
Abdul Mannan vs Akram Ali 43 DLR (AD) 125.
Section 115–
A revisional Court acts beyond its jurisdiction in setting aside concurrent finding of fact, when there is no misreading and misappropriation of the evidence on record.
Shambhu Nath Poddar vs Bangladesh Railway 43 DLR (AD) 82.
Section 15—
Court of appeal below acted illegally in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit without reversing the finding of the trial Court regarding title of the plaintiffs and some of the defendants in the suit property and the saham alloted to the respective parties.
Mahamudul Hoque and 5 others vs Nowab Ali Chowdhury and I 8 others 49 DLR 92.
Section 115—
The extension of time is a matter of concession to the discretion of the court and there is no reason to review and set aside the discretion exercised though provisionally at the time of issuance of the Rules.
Former Modern Shishu Hospital, presently Institute of Child Mother Health vs Abdus Salam, son of Late Yusub Molla and another & 5 others 49 DLR I 60.
Section 115—
The judgment and decree of the court of appeal below, which is not in reversal of the findings arrived at by the trial Court are not sustainable in law. Abdul Gani Kha vs Md Abdul Aziz Azizur Rahman and others 49 DLR 172.
Section 115—
As the Court below was proceeding with the execution case in pursuance of specific order of this Court in another case the petitioner could have moved this Court for modification of that order but he could not pray for stay from the Court below which is bound by the order of this Court. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev) and Assistant Custodian;
Vested Property vs Syed Tahammul Hossain and others 49 DLR 318.
Section 115—
If it is found that the appeal is not maintainable under section 17 of the Arbitration Act the same may be converted into a revisional application.
Bangladesh Water Development Board and others vs Progati Prakaushali and another 49 DLR 335.
Section 115—
Written statement though submitted after a long lapse of two years is accepted, for, parties should be allowed to submit pleadings for proper dispensation of justice.
Autul Krishna Mondal and another vs Chintaram Roy and others 49 DLR 525.
Section 115—
Although there is no period of limitation prescribed, it is now a settled practice that revisional application be filed within 90 days from the date of the impugned order as necessary in case of appeal unless delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court.
Ramizuddin alias Kalu Mia Mistri and others vs Kazi Tajul Islam and others 49 DLR 612.
Section 115—
The findings arrived at by the courts below have been rested upon consideration and discussion of legalevidences and materials on record and also on a correct and proper analysis of the legal aspects involved in the suit and the findings are findings of fact which are not liable to be disturbed by this court in the exercise of power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Zamir Uddin Ahmed vs Ataul Huq and others. 49 DLR 622.
Section 115–
This Court in revisional jurisdiction is not powerless and can for the ends of justice rectify any illegality committed by the inferior court even if such defect is not pointed out by either party.
Abdus Satter and others vs Abdun Noor and others 49 DLR 414.
Section 115–
If there is misreading of evidence and non-consideration of some material evidence then it was incumbent on the revisional court to consider the same and to arrive at a proper finding on the material evidence on record and to finally dispose of the case.
Hussain Ahmed Chowdhury alias Ahmed Hossain Chowdhury and others vs Md Nurul Amin 47 DLR (AD) 162.
Section 115—
Since both the parties agreed the case is sent back to the trial Court on open remand for retrial.
Syed Abdul Mannan and others vs Md Mujahar Ali Mridha & others 50 DLR 81.
Section 115—
When the contending parties adduce evidence in support of their respective cases, whether oral or documentary, a duty is cast upon the Court to consider the same and thereafter · to arrive at its conclusions with reference thereto but it has no right to ignore the evidence of a party irrespective of the value that it may carry.
Abdur Rahim vs Arifur Rahman and others 50 DLR 166.
Section 115—
A court of revision under Section 115(1) CPC can interfere with the findings of fact, as the final court of facts, only in exceptional circumstances when the findings are shockingly perverse or these are vitiated by nonreading and mis-reading of the material evidence or mis-construction of any important documents affecting the merit of the suit.
Abdur Rahim vs Arifur Rahman and others 50 DLR 166.
Section 115—
Order refusing to reject plaint having not been passed on proper consideration is set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Abul Kalam Azad and others vs Md Kamrul Hasan and others 50 DLR 259.
Section 115–
There is a complete ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court Division for interference under Section 115( 1) of the Code of Civil Procedure against any interlocutory orders passed by the Artha Rin Adalat.
Kazi Gowaherul Islam (KJ Islam) vs Standard Co-operative Credit Society Ltd and another 50 DLR 333.
Section 115—
The mere error of law without occasioning failure of justice cannot by itself be a ground for interference under Section 115(1) of the Code.
Advocate Md Abdul Hamid vs Md Fazlur Rahman 50 DLR 441.
Section 115—
Interlocutory order passed by the High Court Division granting injunction upon a finding of prim a facie case and with a direction to dispose of suit within 3 months need not be interfered with.
Shahidul Islam (Md) and another vs Md Sayedur Rahman and others 47 DLR (AD) 70.
Section 115—
There being a total nonconsideration of all the witnesses of the preemptees the learned Single Judge acted wrongly in refusing to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in a case where due to non-consideration of the material evidence on record an erroneous decision has been arrived occasioning a grave failure of justice.
Abdul Mazid Howlader and another vs Lahajuddin How/ader & others 48 DLR (AD) 160.
Section 115—
The revisional court is competent to interfere in a case of nonconsideration of material evidence which is specifically material for the determination of the material issue. Abu Bakar Siddique (Md) vs Additional Deputy Commissioner and others 48 DLR (AD) 154.
Section 115–
The finding that the transactions in respect of the suit lands were not benami being essentially a finding of fact is immune from revision unless it is shown that the finding is based on gross misreading of evidence or on non-consideration of material evidence or it has been founded on misconception of law occasioning failure of justice.
Rupe Jahan Begum and others vs Lutfe Ali Chowdhury and others 49 DLR (AD) 73.
Section 115—
High Court Division have committed grave error of law in passing the impugned order giving the respondent full relief in a summary manner.
Karnafuli Cotton Mills Ltd vs United Commercial Bank Ltd and others 49 DLR (AD) 130.
Section 115—
Disposal of the revisional application without any Rule nor any notice being served upon the appellant for appearing in the case when the matter was taken up for hearing is illegal.
Shamsul Arafin Khan vs Kazal Miah and others 49 DLR (AD) 175.
Section 115—
The revisional Court may in appropriate cases consider additional evidence, but in the present case the finding that the respondent was terminated from service not by a competent authority is not very material, because the reason given by the petitioner for termination of service of the respondent, namely, joining an illegal strike has been proved not to be true by the lower appellate Court.
Managing Director, Janata Bank vs Md Bazlur Rahman and others 50 DLR (AD) 17.
Section 115—
The material findings of the trial Court that the agreements were genuine and consideration passed were not reversed by the lower appellate Court as a final court of fact and hence the High Court Division rightly found that it is a proper judgment of reversal.
Jahanara Begum vs Md Aminul Islam Chowhury and others 50 DLR (AD) 52.
Sections 115—
If the High Court Division is satisfied in exercise ofrevisional authority that the lower appellate Court has failed to consider any material evidence in reversing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court on assigning proper reasons therefor, the proper course will be to send the case back on remand to the appellate Court for re-hearing the appeal upon proper assessment of the evidence. But there may be cases where in the interest of justice the High Court Division may also consider the evidence itself which was not considered by the lower appellate Court while upholding the decree of the Court of appeal below.
Golam Sarwar (Md) & ors. vs Md Liakat Ali and others 50 DLR (AD) 67.
Section 115—
Revisional power is a discretionary one not to be exercised where there is an alternative remedy open to a party.
Ranu Begum and another vs Kazi Liakat Ali and others 50 DLR (AD) 142.
Section 115—
True, the High Court Division has interfered with the findings of fact by the last Court of fact but the interference being based on detecting error apparent on the face of the record need not be disturbed.
Chand Biswas and others vs Abdul Khaleque Sheikh and others 51 DLR (AD) 55.
Section 115—
The High Court Division as a revisional court had hardly any jurisdiction to set aside the findings of fact by the appellate Court and that also without discussing any fault in the factual finding by the said court.
Kochi Mia @ Khocha Mia vs Suruj Mia being dead his heirs Md Fazlur Rahman and others 51 DLR (AD) 57.
Section 115—
In appropriate cases the revisional Court can consider additional evidence.
Managing Director, Janata Bank vs Md Bazlur Rahman and others 51 DLR (AD) 141.
Section 115—
Discretion when exercised with the ends of justice in view the High Court Division could not interfere with in revisional jurisdiction.
Abdul Kader Mondal and others vs Shamsur Rahman Chowdhury 51 DLR (AD) 253
Section 115—
The reduction of maintenance not being a bone of contention between the parties, the decree was interfered with in revision in excess of jurisdiction.
Heftur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum and another 51 DLR (AD) 172.
Section 115—
Error in the decision of the Subordinate 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.
Nurul Abser Chowdhury vs Jesmin Akther 51 DLR 352.
Section 115—
Decision recorded by a Court can be set aside or reversed not by the same Court but by the Superior Court. The same Court cannot sit on appeal on its own decision.
Muzaffor Hossain vs Md Shahidullah and others 51 DLR 400.
Section 115—
This Court is always in favour of supporting a discretion exercised by a Court subordinate to it unless it can be shown that the discretion has been exercised erroneously and, perversely.
Lakshmi Bazar Shahi Masjid Committee and another vs St Francis Xavier's Girls High School 51 DLR 557.
Section 115—
Under provisions of Article 109 of the Constitution the High Court Division can call for the records of any case from any subordinate civil Court and pass an appropriate order if any presiding officer of any such court fails to comply with any direction of the High Court Division made in any case.
State vs Farooq Ahmed, Subordinate Judge 51 DLR 515.
Section 115—
The Arbitrator appointed under section 27 of the Ordinance is a persona designata, i.e. a person designated not by name but by as one of a class. Such Arbitrator appointed under section 28 is not a civil court at all within the meaning of the Code and as such, he is not a court subordinate to this court. So, the instant revision application under Section 115 of the Code is also not maintainable.
Thomarshu alias Majhi vs Bangladesh 52 DLR 516.
Section 115—
In a case where a statute bars entertainment of a revision the exercise of supervisory power under Article 109 of the Constitution is not available.
Hosne Ara Begum and another vs Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited 53 DLR (AD) 9.
Section 115—
The Courts below having considered the reasons for the delay in making the application for review, it is difficult to go into the question of exercise of discretion by them.
Sonali Bank and others vs Md Jalaluddin and another 53 DLR 48.
Section 115—
In the absence of any materials before it, and there being no objection raised at the time of recount before the appropriate forum, this Division cannot hold that the Election Tribunal did not recount votes in accordance with the rules nor accept any of the invalid votes as found by the Election Tribunal as valid.
Shah Alam Patwari (Md) vs Md Siddiqur Rahman Bhuiyan and others 53 DLR 390.
Section 115—
This Court has no power or jurisdiction to examine the legality or the propriety of any order or judgment made by the Divisional Commissioner in respect of civil matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation and others vs Sheikh Abdul Jabbar 53 DLR 488.
Section 115 –
The High Court Division is not vested with the revisional jurisdiction against any order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat.
Shahidullah (Md) vs Eastern Bank Ltd and others 54 DLR 41.
Section 115–
High Court Division is always in favour of supporting a discretion exercised by a Court subordinate to it unless it can be shown that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and perversely.
Matasim Ali Chowdhury vs Md Ismail 54 DLR 104.
Section 115—
A court of Revision can interfere with the findings of facts by the court of appeal below as a final court of facts only in exceptional circumstances when the findings are shockingly perverse.
Ganesh Chandra Das vs Arati Acharjya 54 DLR 348.
Section 115—
The acceptance of the secondary evidence by the Subordinate Judge and his decision in the suit relying upon such nonadmissible evidence are errors of law apparent on the face of the record.
Government of Bangladesh vs Mirpur Semipucca (Tin-shed) Kalayan Samity & others 54 DLR 364
Section l15-
The High Court Division was in error in deciding and reversing the question of fact in respect of possession and Istafa (surrender) which were found in favour of the appellants by the courts below.
Abul Hussain and others vs Afezuddin Mondal and others 55 DLR (AD) 93.
Section 115—
Decisions of Court of Appeal being last and final court of fact are not open to interference in Revisional Jurisdiction unless it is shown that the same have been based upon gross misreading of evidence or founded on misconception or misapplication or misapprehension of law or of any misinterpretation of any material document or otherwise perverse being contrary to law, evidence and materials on record.
Iqbal Hossain Talukder (Md) vs Md Joinal Abedin Talukder and 76 ors 55 DLR 604.
Section 115—
This extraordinary power vests in the High Court to correct error of law of the Subordinate Court which results in failure of justice. Such power therefore cannot be exercised when an appeal shall lie to it.
Standard Bank Ltd vs Tripos Engineering and Trading Company (GD) and others 56 DLR 55.
Section ll5-A decision passed by the Election Tribunal is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Division. Mahbubur Rahman vs Syed Mostofa Jaman and others 56 DLR 322.
Section 115—
Re-hearing – Mere filing of a leave petition does not ipso facto take away the jurisdiction of this Court, unless any interim order was passed by the Appellate Division regulating the proceeding of the High Court Division.
Atiqur Rahman Mullah vs Abul Kalam Azad 56 DLR 373.
Section 115—
Since it is found that both the courts below did not at all consider or assess the evidence on record, this court does not feel it proper to embark upon a task which is specifically assigned to the trial Court and not to a revisional court like the present one.
Mozibar Rahman Molla (Md) and another vs Md Rehazuddin and others 56DLR 427.
Sections 115 & 100 (repealed)—
Extent of revisional power-With the repeal of section 100 and re-enactment of Section 115 in its new garb, the power of the High Court Division has increased to a large extent. The strict binding effect of concurrent findings of fact has been diminished to a large extent by introducing the words "error in the decision occasioning failure of justice".
Bangladesh vs Md Aslam 44 DLR 69.
Sections 115 and 107—
Remand – High Court Division, as a revisional court, was not justified to send the suit back on remand to the trial Court for fresh decision on the evidence on record, without any direction to take additional evidence, when the court itself was competent to decide the issue involved as the evidence on record was complete. When the High Court Division cannot make up its mind on the evidence already on record it should not pass an order of remand but should make up its own mind and come to a decision of its own. The appeal is remanded to the High Court Division for decision in accordance with law.
Attor Mia and another vs Mst. Mahmuda Khatun Chowdhury and others 43 DLR (AD) 78.
Sections 115 and 151-
When the party failed to move the High Court Division under Section 115 CPC within time against the order of the Additional District Judge that being barred by limitation, it was open to him to make an application under section 151, before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge improperly rejected his application under section 151 on the ground that he failed to prefer the appeal before the original order was passed by the Additional District Judge.
Rehanuddin vs A Hakim 39 DLR 21.
Sections 115 and 151—
Re-opening of a Revisional matter – There is no provision in the Code for rehearing of Revision case and reviewing of judgment once delivered by the High Court Division on merits. The Court cannot set aside its own order passed on merits unless the Court has jurisdiction to do so. The kind of order sought for may be passed if it is necessary for the ends of justice so long as the High Court Division is seized of the matter, but not when its jurisdiction and power have ceased after the disposal of the matter on merit.
Buddhi Sankar Biswas vs Akbar Ali Sheikh 44 DLR 242.
Sections 115 & 151—
Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable against an order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat. We act under section 151(1) of the Code and make the Rule absolute with a direction to the Adalat to return the plaint to the filing Advocate for presentation before the proper court.
Kazi Gowaherul Islam (KJ Islam) vs Standard Cooperative Credit Society Ltd and another 50 DLR 333.
Sections 115 & 151—
The High Court Division as the Court of revision must be deemed to have power to see that a court below does not unjustly take away the character of a party or of a witness or a counsel before it.
Bibhu Ranjan Das vs Hakim Ali and others 53 DLR 114.
Sections 115 & 151—
Whenever a party is aggrieved due to the fault of the court occasioning failure of justice, this court is not only competent to undo the wrong done to a party but also it is imperative in the interest of justice to do so.
Pubali Bank Ltd vs Abdul Jalil Bhuiyan 53 DLR 217.
Sections 115 & 151 & Order IX rule 13—
Since the aggrieved party sought relief before the court in revisional jurisdiction challenging the impugned order which on the face of it is illegal, it will not be proper to say that High Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the same on the ground that no revision lies against an interlocutory order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat.
Pubali Bank Limited vs Mazid and Co and others 54 DLR 144.
Section 115 & Order IX rule 13—
The finding as to non-service of summons is a finding of fact not to be interfered in revision unless the finding is perverse or not based on evidence.
Arshad Ali vs Momtaz Ali 45 DLR 164.
Section 115 & Order XXXIX rule 1—
The discretionary relief of temporary injunction having been granted by the courts below the High Court Division was not correct in disturbing the same without taking into consideration the finding of fact on consideration of which the injunction was granted.
Rupban Bibi vs Aynal Kha & other 44 DLR (AD) 144.
Section 115 & Order XLII rule 1—
It is true no appeal was preferred against the order of dismissal of the suit on question of its maintainability but a review application was preferred. Since the order of dismissal was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction, no technical point should stand in the way of doing substantial justice and, as such, the order of dismissal of the suit is set aside.
MA Majid vs M Ahmed 46 DLR 258.
Section 115 and Order 21, rule 61—
The claim that was disallowed under Order XXI, rule 61 is now not only appealable as stated above but also revisable under Section 115(1) CPC.
The impugned order against which the appellant has come is an order under rule 61 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure disallowing Bangladesh Shipping Corporation (garnishee) to the property attached by the executing Court and as such it may be treated as appealable under rule (1)(II) of Order XLIII CPC as amended by Ordinance XLVIII of 1983. Before the said amendment made in 1983 even if appeal did not lie, revision under Section 115(1) CPC would lie before this Court.
Bangladesh Shipping Corporation vs Rajique Ahmed 40 DLR 36.
Section 115(1)—
Period oflimitation for filing a revisional application before the High Court. There is a long practice being followed since the days of Dhaka High Court that a revisional application is to be filed within the period of ninety days, prescribed by law for an appeal, and that the High Court Division may in its discretion entertain an application beyond that period in a suitable case where there is no negligence or !aches on the part of the petitioner. This is a long standing practice, otherwise sound and reasonable, and it does not call for any departure.
Deputy Commissioner vs Kobab Ali 39 DLR (AD) 205.
Section 115(1)—
The District Judge acting as an Election Appellate Tribunal is a persona designata-His decision is revisable under section II 5 of the Code.
Abdul Mutalib vs Md Mostakim Ali and others 51 DLR (AD) 228.
Section 115(1)—
None of the judges sitting singly and exercising jurisdiction under Section 115(1) of the Code were invested with the jurisdiction to strike down a piece of legislation which is the absolute jurisdiction of a properly constituted court exercising jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution. Hosna Jahan (Munna) vs Md Shajahan (Shaju) and others 51 DLR 295.
Section 115(1 )—
The concluding words of Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure says, "the High Court Division may make such order in the case as it thinks fit" have conferred a wide power on this Court, in order to do justice in a case, which includes the power to dispose of the case finally.
Madinullah Miah vs Md Abdul Mannan & anr 54 DLR 507.
Section 115 and Order I rule 10—
The Courts below were not justified in this instant case in dismissing the suit without affording an opportunity to make good the defect of parties.
Sabed Ali Howlader and others vs Abdul Barek and others 51DLR204.
Section 115(1) & Order 7 rule 11—
When a person is suspended without any material whatsoever against him and he had been kept in that condition for months together, the Court should interfere in such a case in the interest of justice.
Altaf Hossain (Md) vs Md Abdul Rahim and others 51 DLR 527.
Section 115 & Order VII rule 7-
The error of law must have to be found within the framework of the suit and not beyond. When the learned Judges themselves acknowledged that their suo motu query was beyond the suit, it was a well-confessed exercise of acting without jurisdiction.
Hefzur Rahman (Md) vs Shamsun Nahar Begum and another 51 DLR (AD) 172.
Section 115(1), Order 39, rule 1 and Order 43 rule 1(r)-
On an application for temporary injunction in a suit for declaration of title the Assistant Judge passed an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1-3 from acting as the office-bearers of Bangladesh Chalachitra Paribeshak Samity-The defendant preferred the instant Civil Revision as the forum of appeal remained closed because of the vacation of the Civil Court. The plaintiff challenged the propriety of the issuance of the rule under Section 115(1) CPC on the ground that the impugned order was appealable under Order XLIII, rule l(r) CPC. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions cited from the Bar, the High Court Division held that revision is not barred merely because the impugned order is appealable to the Court of District Judge.
Wahid Sadeque vs Mozibar Rahman Chowdhury 42 DLR 220.
Section 115(1), Order 39, rule 4—
Material suppression of facts is enough for setting aside the order of temporary injunction granted by this Court on 23-11-1988.
Karnafuli Paper Mills Sramik Karmachari Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions Chittagong 41DLR262.
Section 115 and Order 41 rule 31—
Reversal of the trial Court's findings that "Pitamber and after his death his heirs had been possessing the suit land" by the learned Sub-Judge by ignoring altogether material facts and documents. The learned Sub-Judge also held without any basis that "It is presumed that Samad Ali's tenancy right continued" though there is no evidence of possession of the plaintiff predecessors' right from the beginning of the present century upto 1963 when the plaintiffs allegedly purchased. These findings as to Samad Ali's and plaintiffs' possession cannot be legally sustained. Further, the learned. Sub-Judge without considering the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant Nos. 4-6 were the heirs of Samad Ali just in one sentence found that "the plaintiffs have sufficiently proved that their vendors are heirs of Samad Ali." Such a finding ought not to have been allowed to stand in revision when the same was raised as the first ground. Appeal allowed.
Nur Ahmed vs Nur Ahmed 40 DLR (AD) 175.
Section 115, Order IX rule 1—
Once the defendant denies service of summons upon him the whole onus shifts to the plaintiff who has to prove satisfactorily that summons was in fact duly served. Since the finding of the trial Court as to nonservice of summons cannot be said to be unreasonable and perverse, the High Court Division erred in law in setting aside that finding entering into a question of fact while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Wazed Ali Sardar (Md) vs Md Afsaruddin Sardar and others 48 DLR (AD) 159.
Sections 115, 151 and Order IX rules 4 & 13—
When the client is victimised because of the negligent and enigmatic conduct of their agent Government pleader, prayer for interference with order of restoration of the suit obtained under the Court's inherent jurisdiction is refused for the ends of justice.
Tasir Ahmed and others vs People's Republic of Bangladesh 50 DLR 109.
Section 115, Order XXXVII—
The higher court may entertain the suit and try it or may in the alternative refuse to entertain it directing the plaintiff to present the plaint before the court of the lower jurisdiction. In the present case there is no lack of jurisdiction for the District Court to dispose of such suits through summary procedure. Therefore the plaint be returned for presenting the same before the District Court.
Ansarul Hoque vs Agrani Bank 50 DLR 263.
Section 115(1)-
The impugned order having been passed by the District Judge in a non-judicial matter in his administrative capacity, the High Court Division has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision.
Globe Metal Jnsustries Sramik Union Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd vs Asharaf Ali and others 49 DLR 517.
Section 115(1) & Order XLII rule 1—
The revisional power of the High Court Division is a supervisory power which may also be exercised suo motu.
Safaruddin and others vs Fazlul Huq and others 49 DLR (AD) 151.