Rule 127 Ch. VII –
Payment of cost-When the Court passed an order asking the plaintiff to pay costs on his application for adjournment of hearing he was bound to abide by the order.
Ansar Ali vs Yeasin Mea 45 DLR 517.
Rules 388(2) & 466(2) –
Communication of orders – Effect of absence of communication of Court's order to a party. An order of the Court affecting one of the pillars of the suit is meant for communication to all parties concerned. Since the Court's order transferring the suit from one Court to another was not communicated and the course of the suit took an adverse turn to the prejudice of the defendant behind his back and without his knowledge, the suit was rightly restored by the High Court Division.
MA Wahab and another vs Abul Kalam and another 44 DLR (AD) 13.
Rules 419 & 820-
The senior Advocate can only appear and plead on behalf of the party if he is either engaged by the party itself or by the already appointed lawyer in the case.
Abdul Mannan vs Abdul Aziz 46 DLR 477.
The trial Court may expunge the relevant portion of the report about possession and may direct the Advocate Commissioner to resubmit his report according to Jaw deleting the comment about possession of the parties which will be determined by the court after recording evidence.
Sufia Islam Shila and another vs Shakhawat Hossain and others 54 DLR 178.
When a person is no longer the appointed Advocate of a party, it is incumbent upon the subordinate judge to communicate an order to the parties about the arrival of the records of the case from the High Court Division.
Makbul Ahmed and others vs Mohammedullah and others 54 DLR 399.
Rules 69 & 84 (Volume I Chapter 3)-
On receipt of service return notice, the court's duty is to see the manner of service and record it in the order sheet whether the notice has properly been served.
Nirman International Ltd vs Islam Steel Mills Ltd and others 50 DLR 125.
Rule 773 of the Civil Rules and Orders speaks that application for revocation of probate and letters of administration should be treated in the same manner as an application for probate or letters of administration. This classification is only for the limited purpose of submitting report to the High Court and as such from this it will be totally erroneous to hold that the order passed in a revocation proceeding is a decree.
Golak Chandra Roy vs Niva Rani Guha Roy 40 DLR 382.
Rule 26 (Volume I Chapter-1)-
Time granted to the plaintiff-petitioner till 25-11-1982 for deposit of deficit Court-fees-When time was allowed to put in deficit court-fees within a day, the learned Sub-Judge had no jurisdiction to reject the plaint without waiting till the end of the day (25-11-1982) fixed for such deposit-Rejection of plaint held illegal.
Bangladesh vs Messrs Birda Bangladesh Agencies Ltd 40 DLR 338.
Rules 69 and 84(e)-
Service of summons, proof of – Summons served by process-server without noting the names and addresses of Mokabila witnesses in the service return Process-server appearing in Court as a witness – his evidence without examining the Mokabila witness not acceptable-It is obligatory upon the process-server to mention in his report the name and address of the person if any, by whom the house in question was identified and in whose presence the copy of summons was affixed – When service reports were devoid of these essential information, they were unacceptable – Mere personal appearance of the process-server as a witness in Court did not make the report acceptable.
Upendra Chandra Rishi vs Sufia Begum 42 DLR (AD) 285.
Rule 70 –
Service of summons in presence of at least "two independent local residents" "whenever possible." Signatures of Mokabila witnesses to be obtained by the process-server. In case of absence of such signatures, process server is to explain why signatures could not be obtained. Absence of explanation raises a reasonable suspicion.
Rule 70 of the Civil Rules and Orders Vol. 1 provides for service of the summons in presence of at least "two independent local residents." Service in presence of a resident of a different locality without any explanation about his competence is not certainly in accordance with Rule. Again, under this Rule 70 the process server is required "whenever possible" to obtain the signatures of the Mokabila witnesses. This implies that in the case of absence of signatures of the Mokabila witnesses the process server is required to explain in the report why it could not be possible to obtain the signatures. The absence of such an explanation also raises a reasonable suspicion that no Mokabila witness was at all present.
Alhaj Abdul Aziz vs Kalipada Das 41 DLR 170.