Order XI rule 1 (as amended)-
The plaintiff or the defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite parties within 10 days from the date of framing of issues.
Kohinoor Chemical Company Ltd vs Eastern Shippers & Traders Ltd 41DLR387.
Order XI rule 1 (as amended)-
The provision fixing the time limit is not mandatory in nature, rather it is directory in nature.
Where the lawmaker provides a fixed period of time for doing a thing and does not make any consequential provision to follow in the event of failure to perform the act within the specified period, such provision of law of fixing the time limit, it seems to us, is not mandatory, rather it is directory in nature.
In view of discussion above, it is held that amended rule I of Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory in nature, rather it is directory.
Kohinoor Chemical Company Ltd vs Eastern Shippers & Trader Ltd 41DLR387.
Order XI rule I-
Interrogatories may be delivered only with the leave of the court and it is in the discretion of the Court to grant or not to grant leave. In the facts of the case, the learned trial Court rightly exercised his judicial discretion in refusing to grant leave.
Moon Garments Industries and others vs Janata Bank, Foreign Exchange Corporate Branch and others 50 DLR (AD) 72.
Order XI rule 8-
The provision of Order XI, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directory in character and the court is yet possessed of powers to extend time in a proper case.
Bisheswar Bhattacharjee vs Shantimoy Bhattacharjee and others 52 DLR (AD) 124.
Order XI rule 21-
The foundation for exercise of power under this provision of law is the fulfillment of two requirements-the first is the failure of interrogated party to comply with any order to answer the interrogatory, and the second is the interrogating party applying to the Court to impose the penalty.
Yusuf vs Moftal Ahmed Sowdagar 45 DLR (AD) 178.
Order XI rule 21-
Striking out of written statement-Whether striking out for nonproduction of document is legal-As the plaintiff did not file any petition for inspection of the documents called for and ordered to be produced in court, the provision for striking out the written statement is not attracted in the present case.
Abdul Latif vs Residential Model School 44 DLR 392.
Order XI rule 21-
Power to strike out written statement-When it will not be exercised-Interrogatories having not been filed by the plaintiff within the specified time, the Courts below committed no illegality in rejecting his prayer for striking out the written statement on the question of answering interrogatories.
Ansar Ali vs Yeasin Mea 45 DLR 517.
Order XI rule 21-
The Court cannot act on its own motion to initiate the penal action but can do so only on the application of the offended party.
Nurjahan Begum and others vs Jasimuddin Ahmed and others 51 DLR 310.
Order XII rule 6-
In a suit. for money the defendant admitted the plaintiff's claim and the court thereupon decreed the suit-Such a decree on admission includes also the interest claimed by the plaintiff till realisation of the dues.
Messrs Kadam Rasul Silicate Works vs Sonali Bank 37 DLR 215.
Order XII rule 6-
If a judgment is passed on admission then no decree need be drawn up and the plaintiff may enforce payment of the amount in pursuance of the judgment.
Messrs Kadam Rasul Silicate Works vs Sonali Bank 37 DLR 215.
Order XII rule 6 & Order VI rule 1—
Admission, ambit of—Decree on admission—Written objection filed in an interlocutory matter would not be a part of the pleading of the parties in the suit but if there is an admission in the written objection it would be regarded as an admission. The expression "or otherwise" under r. 6 of Order XII would empower the Court to see the admission made elsewhere in the proceeding during the trial and should not be confined only to written statement. The decree, as passed on admission made otherwise than in written statement, is in accordance with law and need not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
A Elahee & Co vs MM Aziz 44 DLR 131.
Order XIII rule 1-
Objection as to admissibility of evidence is to be taken at the first instance. In the instant case no such objection was raised against the Commissioner's report in question which can also be relied upon as the same is an official document and was prepared in due course.
Abdul Quader Chowdhury vs Sayedul Hoque 43 DLR 568.
Order XIII rule 4-
Provision of section 36, Stamp Act mandatory-Once a document properly admitted under Orders XIII, rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code-Its admissibility cannot be questioned in any Court at any stage of the same suit on ground of insufficiency of stamp.
Messrs Daulat Ltd vs Pubali Bank Ltd 39 DLR 243.
Order XIV rule 1-
High Court Division misdirected itself in law in holding that the trial Court was not justified in raising the plea of adverse possession suo motu by not framing any issue on this point earlier.
Abdul Jalil Miah (Md) vs Niropama Ritchil and others 49 DLR (AD) 61.
Order XIV rule 1-
The plea that the suit was not properly valued and required court-fee was not paid being not an issue in the suit, it cannot be considered for the first time by the Appellate Division.
Mokbul Hossain vs Khandaker Mujibur Rahman 51 DLR (AD) 77.
Order XIV rule 1-
From the facts of the case it is evident that it was totally unnecessary for the Judges to indulge in the discussion on polygamy in Islam which was neither an issue in the suit nor required to be decided in the context of the pleadings of the parties.
Elias (Md) vs Jesmin Sultana 51 DLR (AD) 99.
Order XIV rule 1-
It is a long standing practice of this court that no newly engaged lawyer could act on behalf of any party without the consent of the previously engaged lawyer and the newly engaged lawyer can only act taking consent of the previously engaged lawyer.
Abul Kashem vs Executive Engineer & others 53 DLR 186.
Order XIV r. 1(4) & 2 and Order XV rule 3-
Assistant Judge wrongly decided the question of maintainability of the suit wihout framing proper issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence and the Subordinate Judge on appeal rightly set aside the disputed decree.
Abdul Hamid Shaikh vs Sree Ram Krishna Dev and others 48 DLR 367.
Order XIV rule 2-
Deciding a preliminary issue on valuation-in the present case the objective standard of valuation being available and the question of jurisdiction being involved, the munsif committed an error of law in not deciding the question of valuation and in putting off the matter to be decided with other issues.
Shaukat Hossain vs Abdul Hakim 42 DLR 508.
Order XIV rule 2–
The plaintiff may take recourse to section 151 for rejection of the set-off, alternatively he may bring the maintainability of the set-off as an issue of law to be decided first.
Sultana Jute Mills Ltd and others vs Agrani Bank and others 46 DLR (AD) 174.
Order XIV rule 2-
The trial Court is under the mandate of law to decide the issues of law where a party applies for such decision.
Monjur Ahmed Chowdhury vs Gulbanu 46 DLR 267.
Order XIV rule 2 –
Question of maintainability of the suit cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage of hearing temporary injunction matter when evidence should be required to decide the same. But such question can be decided at that stage when from the averments made in the plaint or from admitted facts apparent on the face of the record it appears that the suit is expressly or impliedly barred by any law or is not otherwise maintainable. In such circumstances decision on the question of maintainability of the suit need not be postponed till the trial of the suit in considering prayer for temporary injunction in a case where there is no necessity of taking evidence for deciding such a question.
Chairman, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakhya and others vs Abul Hossain & others 50DLR 249.
Order XIV rule 2 & Order XV rule 3-
Framing of issues on law alone when not proper since the whole question centers round whether the trust is a public trust or a private trust and evidence has to be led in support of such issue, framing of issue on point of law alone should not be allowed. All the issues relating to law and facts must be framed together for the greater interest of the parties.
Naresh Lal Saha vs Bhupati Mohan Roy 42 DLR 485.
Order XIV rule 2 and Order XV rule 3-
Issue of law and maintainability of suitWhatever may be the Court's view on issue of law, it is now mandatory for the Court to try and determine the issue of law and facts as well. The Court may hear the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue but it must postpone its judgment till the hearing of the suit on all other issues and thereafter give its findings on the issue of maintainability and on other issues as well.
Inspector, Railway Nirapatta Bahini vs Sohrab Ali 43 DLR 79.
Order XIV rule 2 and Order XV rule 13-
Issues of law and of fact-When both issues need be framed together-since the whole question centres round only one point i.e. whether the trust in question is a public trust or a private trust and when evidence has to be led in support of such issues, framing of issue on point of law alone should not be allowed. Justice demands that all the issues relating to law and facts be framed together.
Naresh Lal Saha vs Bhupoti Mohan Roy 44 DLR 96.
Order XIV rule 2, Order XV rule 3 & Order XX rule 5-
Special provisions in Order XIV, rule 2 and Order XV, rule 3, CPC form exceptions to the general rule prohibiting the trial or disposal of a suit piecemeal.-Provisions of Order XIV, rule 2, CPC are obligatory and not discretionary {rel30 DLR (SC) 30.
Sultan Miah vs Haradhan Saha 40 DLR 236.
Order XIV rule 2, Order XV rule 3 & Order XX rule 5-
A plaint cannot be rejected giving a decision on a particular issue when already all the issues have been framed on the pleadings of both the parties.
Jugal Kishore Sarker vs Md Sohrab Ali Sk and others 49 DLR 508.
Order XIV rule 2 and Order XLIII rule 23 –
Preliminary point-It is a point the decision on which is sufficient to dispose of the whole suit. It includes a point relating to cause of action or locus standi. In common phraseology it may be called a "technical knockout." The Advocate raising preliminary point having however argued on other issues as well, the preliminary point loses much of its force and the same stands on equal footing with other points raised on merits.
Abul Kalam Azad vs Muslema Khatun 42 DLR 332.
Order XV rule 3-
Issue of law and maintainability of suit-whatever may be the Court's view on issue of law, it is now mandatory for the Court to try and determine the issue of law and facts as well. The Court may hear the issue of maintainability as a preliminary Issue but it must postpone its judgment 'till the hearing of the suit on all other issues and thereafter give its findings on the issue of maintainability and on other issues as well.
Inspector, Railway Nirapatta Bahini, Bangladesh Railway KhuIna andothers vs Sohrab Ali 43 DLR 79.
Order XV rule 13-
Issues of law and of fact -when both issues need be framed together since the whole question centres round only one point i.e. whether the trust in question is a public trust or a private trust and when evidence has to be led in support of such issues framing of issue on point of law alone should not be allowed. Justice demands that all the issues relating to law and facts be framed together.
Naresh Lal Saha and others vs Bhupati Mohan Roy and others 44 DLR
Order XVI rule 1-
There is no bar in issuing summons upon cited witnesses for the 2nd time if it is necessary in the interest of justice. If the application for summons is not a bonafide one, the Court may refuse the prayer for issuance of summons.
Dildar Hossain vs Md Sharif Hossain 43 DLR 196.
Order XVI rule 1-
The privilege of a litigant to take out summons to witnesses is subject to the satisfaction of the Court. If the prayer appears to be wanting in bonafides or it is considered as an abuse of the process of the Court, it will be lawful for the Court to refuse the prayer.
Mansur Ali Sikder vs Kanailal Banarjee & others 50 DLR (AD) 14.
Order XVII-
Order X relates to the date of hearing for which a summons has been issued to the defendant while Order XVII relates to adjourned hearing.
Messrs Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd vs Chairman Labour Court 39 DLR 11.
Order XVII rule 1-
A party which is granted adjournment with cost as condition precedent, cannot be granted further adjournment unless the cost is paid.
Sk Sohrab Ali vs Gazi Abdur Rashid and others 53 DLR 598.
Order XVII rule 1-
Adjournment cannot be allowed as a matter of course, even if both the parties ask for it.
Mahbubur Rahman and others vs Agrani Bank and another 55 DLR (AD) 61.
Order XVII rule 2-
Order XVII, rule 2 provides that where on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the· modes directed in that behalf by Order XI or make such other order as it thinks fit.
Messrs Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd vs Chairman Labour Court 39 DLR 11.
Order XVII rule 2 and Order XX rule 4(1) –
Ex parte decree—
When to be passed and extent of judgment-Before an ex parte decree is passed, the court is required to go through the records whether such a decree could be passed on the assertionslevidence of the plaintiff, but the court is not required to delve deep into the matter and ferret out a defence plea that may lead to the dismissal of the plaintiffs case.
Alfu Miah and ors. vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 112.
Order XVIII rule 2-
Right of parties to address the Court generally on the whole case is called an argument.
Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed vs Bangladesh 40 DLR 331.
Order XVIII rule 2-
Production of evidence – plaintiffs' case having been totally denied by the defendant, onus to prove the case was entirely on the plaintiffs and they having failed to prove it, there was no onus on the defendant to discharge by producing evidence.
Noor Mohammad Khan vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 434.
Order XVIII rule 7-
Discretion cannot be extended beyond the law of Evidence to allow a party to the suit, who did not cross-examine a witness in time without any excuse, to avail his right to cross-examine the witness.
Abdul Munim and others vs Hazera Zaman and others 53 DLR 356.
Order XVIII rule. 12-
When a judge hears and sees witnesses and makes a conclusion or inference with regard to what is the weight on balance of their evidence, that judgment is entitled to great respect irrespective of whether the judge makes any observation with regard to credibility or not.
Kashem Khan (Md) & others vs Sudarshan Singh 49 DLR 619.
Order XVIII rule 17-
Discretionary power given by Order XVIII, rule 17 to recall and examine witnesses must be exercised in accordance· with law and not arbitrarily.
Nurul Islam vs Md Abdur Rashid 37 DLR (AD) 32.
Order XVIII rule 17-
The Court has ample power to recall at any stage a witness who has earlier been examined, cross-examined and discharged. The powers are very wide and the court can recall a witness even while considering its judgment, if any ambiguity or omission is noticed. This power can be exercised at the instance of a party or even suo motu, for effective and complete adjudication of disputes in doing justice in a given case.
Morsalin (Md) and others vs Nurul Huda and others 48 DLR 593.
Order XVIII rule 17-
The Court can re-call a witness even while considering the judgment, if any ambiguity or omission is noticed. The power can be exercised suo motu and also at the instance of a party.
Hanif Ali (Md) vs Hajera Khatun and others 55 DLR 17.
Order XX rule 4—
Ajudgment even when it is ex parte should show application of court's judicial mind as to whether the plaintiffs witnesses and the papers produced proved the plaintiffs case.
Shamsuddin Ahmed & others vs Government of Bangladesh & others 45 DLR 675.
Order XX rule 4-
It is imperative that all judgments must contain the reasons for the decision. The judgment of a Court of Small Causes must indicate that the SCC Judge applied his judicial mind into the material evidence on record.
Nurul Hossain Khan vs Salenoor Begum 50DLR 38.
Order XX rule 4 and Order XLI rule 1-
SCC suit-Absence of framing of issue on relationship of landlord and tenant-Though no issue was framed specifically on this point, it is clear from the judgment that the sec Judge had taken into consideration the main points and decided the same as if there was an issue on the points and hence the judgment cannot be assailed only for not framing specific issue.
Jogesh Chandra Pal vs Ershad Hossain Chaudhury 43 DLR 170.
Order XX rule 4(1 )-
Ex parte decree—When to be passed and extent of judgment – Before an ex parte decree is passed, the court is required to go through the records whether such a decree could be passed on the assertionslevidence of the plaintiff, but the court is not required to delve deep into the matter and ferret out a defence plea that may lead to the dismissal of the plaintiffs case.
Alfu Miah and others vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner Dhaka & others 45 DLR (AD)
Order XX rule 4(2)-
Even in ex parte disposal, a Court is not absolved of statutory obligation of writing a lawful judgment as required under the Code. Discharge of judicial function in slipshod and perfunctory manner was time and again deprecated, therefore, such decision is outright rejected.
Korea Exchange Bank, Seoul, Korea vs Gemini Garments Limited and others 56 DLR 392.
Order XX rule 4(2) & Order XLI rule 31-
Trial Court as well as the appellate Court should apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the issues involved therein and upon assessment of evidence on record, should give a reasoned judgment thereon not only to satisfy their own conscience but also of the litigants when confidence of the litigant in courts is built upon the quality of judgments it delivers.
Mozibar Rahman Molla (Md) and another vs Md Rehazuddin and others 56 DLR 427.
Order XX rule 5-
Omission of the comma & words "Unless the finding upon any or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit" in Order XX, rule 5 CPC amended by Ordinance No. 48 of 1983-Effect of-While writing the judgment, the trial Court has to give its decision on all the issues framed. It has no longer a discretion to avoid decisions on fact.
Md Sultan Miah vs Sree Haradhan Saha 40 DLR 236.
Order XX rule 5-
Issue of law and maintainability of suit-whatever may be the Court's view on issue of law, it is now mandatory for the Court to try and determine the issue of law and facts as well. The Court may hear the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue but it must postpone its judgment till the hearing of the suit on all other issues and thereafter give its findings on the issue of maintainability and on other issues as well.
Inspector, Railway Bahini vs Sohrab Ali 43 DLR 79.
Order XX rule 5-
Issue of law and maintainability of suit-whatever may be the Court's view on issue of law, it is now mandatory for the Court to try and determine the issue of law and facts as well. The Court may hear the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue but it must postpone its judgment till the hearing of the suit on all other issues and thereafter give its finding on the issue of maintainability and on other issues as well.
Inspector, Railway Bahini vs Sohrab Ali 43 DLR 79.
Order XX rr 6(1) & 7 and Order XXVI rule 14(3)-
The trial Court after accepting the commissioner's report having passed the final decree as per provision of sub-rule (3) of rule 14 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure there waslis no scope to file revisional application before this court challenging the said order and, as such, this Rule cannot be maintained.
Abu Bakar Siddique vs Md Khorshed Alam 54 DLR 75.
Order XX rule 12-
Where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immoveable property and for rent or mesne profits the Court may pass a decree, inter alia, for the rent or mesne profits which have accrued on the property during a period prior to the institution of the suit.
Primal Ranjan Das vs Nasima Khatun 49 DLR (AD) 144.