Order VII rule 1(c)-
Cause of action-Not only a date for a cause of action is to be given in the plaint but also the facts constituting the cause of action for the plaintiff against the defendant are necessarily to be mentioned in the plaint.
Ayub (Md) vs Sonali Bank and others 47 DLR I63.
Order VII rule 1(c)-
The question of a fresh threat from the heirs of the defendant does not arise as the suit was filed at a time when there was definite cause of action and as such the Court· was not correct in holding that there was no continuing threat to file the suit.
Saitan Bibi and others vs Chairna Bewa and others 5I DLR (AD) 28.
Order VII rule 1(e)-
Cause of action-What it is-The incidence of the cause of action must be antecedent to the bringing of the suit at a time when the right to sue arose for the first time. It consists of the entire set of facts that gives rise to a legal action and is to be provided to entitle the plaintiff to succeed in the suit. It has little relation either to the defence to be taken by the defendant or the nature of relief prayed for.
Surat Sarder and others vs Aftal Hossain and others 49 DLR (AD) 99.
Order VII rule l(e), Order VIII rule 3 & Order XIV rule 1-
Cause title forms very much a part of the application (for pre-emption). Statements made therein should be denied specifically or by implication.
What is stated in the cause title is not an averment. As a result the pre-emption application should fail, even then the revisional application is liable to be rejected because of the decision in the case of Mr. Matitur Rahman vs Md Iman Ali@ Md Iman Miah and others I981 BLD (AD) 280 wherein it has been held, that mere omission to making an assertion in respect of ceiling of land in the application by the preemptors or to adduce evidence to this effect in the absence of any averment to the contrary, will not render the application liable to be dismissed. An omission to record a finding to this affect in such a circumstance cannot be a ground for dismissal of the pre-emption case.
Idris Mia vs Promode Ranjan Das 45 DLR 126.
Order VII rule 3-
Failure to give specification of suit land-the plaintiffs having failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of law in giving description sufficient to identify the suit land, they are not entitled to any decree even if they succeed in proving their title.
Noor Mohammad Khan vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 434.
Order VII rule 3-
Identification of the suit property-The lower appellate Court on scrutiny of plaint schedules came to the finding that the description of the suit land given by boundaries is quite identifiable and not vague and thereby rightly revised the trial Court’s finding on identification. The suit being one for declaration of· title only and there being no prayer for confirmation of possession or recovery of possession, the point of alleged vagueness as to the description ofthe suit land was not so material for adjudication.
Bangladesh vs Dewan Obaidur Reza Chowdhury 43 DLR 551.
Order VII rule 7-
The Code permits the grant of such general or other relief as the plaintiff is entitled to get upon the evidence even if the plaint does not contain a prayer for the relief.
Commander (Rtd) AA Chowdhury vs AKM Imam Hossain and others 49 DLR 23.
Order VII rule 7-
In the name of granting general or other relief the Court cannot and would not mount any surprise on the defendant and make him liable for something which does not arise out of the plaint and, as such, he had no occasion to answer the same. This is merely an extension of the principle of natural justice.
Hefzur Rahman vs Shamsun Nahar Begum 51 DLR (AD) 172.
Order VII rule 7-
It is absolutely the domain and the discretion of the Court to grant the relief sought for or to grant any other general or other relief that may be thought fit and proper.
Maico Jute and Bag Corporation vs Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation and others 55 DLR (AD) 23.
Order VII rule 7-
When PW 1 admitted that the plaintiff was dispossessed from a portion of the suit property it was a must for him to incorporate the fact and add necessary prayer by way of amendment of the plaint specifying the area dispossessed but this having not been done, from where there was no scope to give relief to the plaintiff.
Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation vs Md Kashem and others 55 DLR 350.
Order VII rule 10-
The conversion of the suit from one file to another does not involve a change in the nature and character of the suit so as to bar amendment of the plaint. The court had ample jurisdiction to allow the amendment and then to return the amended plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.
Nazrul Islam and another vs Jahanara Hassan and another 46 DLR 106.
Order VII rule 10-
Retum of plaint in a matter relating to persons in the service of the Republic-Amendment replacing a cause of action, after it had ceased to exist, by a new cause of action so as to change the nature of the suit and the cause of action will not be allowed, and if allowed, cannot relate back to the date of filing the suit. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court having been vested in the Administrative Tribunal by the promulgation of special statute the jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of bank employees has been ousted, and in that view of the matter, the plaint was rightly returned by the civil Court for presentation to the proper Tribunal having jurisdiction.
Mansur Ali vs Janata Bank 43 DLR 394.
Order VII rule 10-
Locus standi to invoke Admiralty jurisdiction-Only the owner or consignee or assignee of the Bill of Lading of any goods may claim damages against the owner, master or crew of the ship. The plaintiff insurer having satisfied neither of these descriptions they have no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bangladesh Shipping Corporation 43 DLR 322.
Order VII rule 10-
Suit under Admiralty jurisdiction when not maintainable-Since the plaintiff is neither the owner nor consignee nor assignee of any Bill of Lading of any goods and since no damage was done to any goods of the plaintiff on board by the defendant, the plaintiffinsurer has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court under section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act. The plaint be returned to the plaintiff with liberty to file it in appropriate court if not otherwise barred.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bangladesh Shipping Corporation 43 DLR 548.
Section VII rule 10-
Jurisdiction to entertain suit-A corporation can be said to carry on business at the place where it has a branch only in respect of a cause of action which arises wholly or in part at such place. If no part of the cause of action accrues at the place of the branch officer the mere fact of the corporation having a branch office at the place will not give the court jurisdiction to entertain a suit.
Khondaker Mahtabuddin Ahmed, vs Matin Tea and Trading Company 46 DLR (AD) 92.
Order VII rule 10-
Section 7(XI) of the Court-fees Act provides an objective standard for valuation of a suit for eviction of a monthly tenant by the landlord. In such a case, the subjective satisfaction of the plaintiff is of no avail.
Didar Ali and others vs NaziurRahman 50 DLR 451.
Order VII rule 10 & Order XX rule 5-
The defendants at the earliest opportunity raised the question of undervaluation of the suit and, as such; a specific issue to that effect ought to have been framed.
Abdus Samad and others vs Md Gafur and others 56 DLR 297.
Order VII rules 10 and 11-
In a case where the court finds that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the plaint need not be rejected, it should be returned for presentation before the proper court.
KM Sarwar Hossain vs Mosharraf Hossain and others 45 DLR 562.
Order VII rules 10 and 11(b)(c)-
Supreme Court of 1774 of Bengal-Causes arising out of a contract of marine insurance would come under the provisions of Admiralty Act of 1861 for this court to have jurisdiction.
Bengal Liner Ltd, Dhaka vs Sadharan Bima Corporation 42 DLR 281.
Order VII rules 10(1) and 11-
The plaint is to be rejected as the application is barred under Order VII.
Habibur Rahman vs Election Commission 40 DLR 459.
Order VII rule 11-
In view of allegation of malafide, rejection of plaint improper. The plaintiffs alleged that Madrasah had sufficient land for the purpose of. the extension of the Madrasah. He alleged in his plaint that the defendant initiated the requisition proceeding out of grudge and ill motive and the requisitioning authority had requisitioned the suit property without inquiry -. The Trial Court had recorded the finding that there was no inquiry before requisitioning the property in question. On the fact of such finding it is beyond comprehension as to how the plaint itself was rejected under Order VII, rule 11 CPC.
Nur Muhammad vs Mainuddin 39 DLR (AD) 1.
Order VII rule 11-
Plaintiff alleges, that requisition has been made for collateral purpose-Rejection of the plaint in view of such allegations not proper. The main theme in the plaint is that the order of requisition was passed for a collateral purpose and thus maia fide in nature. It may be that ultimately the plaintiffs cannot prove mala fide as alleged in suit but the plaint cannot be rejected outright under Order VII, rule 11 CPC upon entering into the question at issue on the basis of facts to be proved by evidence.
Nur Muhammad vs Mainuddin 39 DLR (AD) 1.
Order VII rule 11-
A plaint will not be rejected unless it shows want of cause of action and is not barred by any law.
Shahzadpur Central Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd vs Md Abdul Bari 37 DLR 178.
Order VII rule 11-
Rejection of plaint without recording evidence and without considering the facts that ought to come out after taking evidence not sustainable. The suit was filed on the basis of a loss of contingent right that the plaintiff, an alleged promoter, was left out in the formation of the proposed Bank-Such a promoter has always a cause of action for filing the suit.
National Bank Ltd vs Haroon Malik & others 42 DLR 103.
Order VII rule 11-
Bar of MLR and res judicata-The judgment by the Summary Military Court in the case being without jurisdiction the rejection of plaint on plea of earlier trial by such a court is not sustainable.
Meher Ali vs AK Murshid 42 DLR 357.
Order VII rule 11-
‘The plaint alone (and not the application of the defendant) should be considered for arriving at a decision whether rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure merits or not. In so doing, the Court must apply its mind to the case of the plaintiff as set out in the body of the plaint as a whole assuming all the averments made therein to be true in the manner and form without taking into consideration the pleadings of the defendant.
Abul Hassnat vs Ershad Ali Beg 41 DLR 244.
Order VII rule 11-
There is no legal bar for a defendant to pray for rejection of the plaint and no bar to. the court disposing of such a prayer before filing of the written statement. The learned Assistant Judge has thus fallen into an error in finding otherwise.
Mostafa Kamal vs BD Habibullah 41 DLR 197.
Order VII rule 11-
Question of maintainability of suit: The Gazette Notification dated 21st October, 1984 assigned special jurisdiction to a Sub-Judge and Commercial Court relating to cases involving non-realisation of loans taken from financial institutions and banks. In the present suit the plaintiff having prayed for certain declarations relating to his property and the Sub-Judge being the court of original jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues involved in the suit, it is maintainable before the Sub-Judge as framed.
ANM Toufiq vs Janata Bank 42 DLR 439.
Order VII rule 11-
Completion of registration is a mere procedural step .. To reject a petition for pre-emption at the initial stage on the ground of non-registration of the document before filing of the petition would cause unnecessary hardship. By deferring the decision on the point of pre-maturity of the pre-emption petition till final hearing of the case itself the trial Court committed no error of law.
Abdul Muhaimin Khan vs Bashiruddin 45 DLR 382.
Order VII rule 11-
Respondents in a civil suit alleged that they did not nominate any representative but the Chairman concerned out of grudge brought two of his men and showed them being nominated by the respondents in Village Court-Appellant (Defendant) proceeded for rejection of the plaint in the face of these allegations-Plaint in civil suit, cannot be rejected- To decide the truth of the matter evidence is necessary which can be available only in course of trial of the suit which is prima facie maintainable.
Kazi Mobarak Ali vs Mohammad Yeasin Mazumder 43 DLR (AD) 60.
Order VII rule 11-
Rejection of plaint-At what stage it can be done- There is no hard and fast rule as to when and at what stage a plaint can be rejected. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Jobeda Khatun vs Momtaz Begum 45 DLR (AD) 31.
Order VII rule 11-
Rejection of plaintThe plaintiff made statement in the plaint admitting the possession of a Company in the suit land but did not make the Company a defendant in the suit-The company having not been impleaded and no prayer having been made for recovery of possession of the suit land the Courts below have committed no illegality in rejecting the plaint.
Khandakar Amirul Islam vs Khandakar Amanullah 44 DLR 514.
Order VII rule 11-
After having exhausted all procedures under the Public Demands Recovery Act which is a special law the plaintiffs are precluded from coming to the civil Court. The instant suits are therefore barred by law on the face of the plaint themselves.
Marida Begum vs Md Hasan 43 DLR 242.
Order VII rule 11-
Fresh suit-Same cause of action-Since two suits were filed one after another upon the same cause of action, the later suit ought to have been stayed. The later suit having been brought before the dismissal of the Title Suit No. 210 of 1981 the bar of Or. IX rule 9 has no manner of application in the present case.
Hajee Abdul Latif vs Abdul Huq 44 DLR 601.
Order VII rule 11-
Jurisdictions-When the Court rejects or refuses to reject a plaint it does so in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. Even where clause ( d) of Or. VII r. 11 of the Code is invoked the court is entitled to examine whether the suit is barred by law.
Guiness Peat (Trading) Limited vs Md Fazlur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 242.
Order VII rule 11-
The plea of implied bar should ordinarily be decided on evidence unless the facts disclosed in the plaint clearly prove that the suit was not maintainable. A resort to section 151 of the Code may be made in an exceptional case.
Guiness Peat (Trading) Limited vs Md Fazlur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 242.
Order VII rule 11-
In an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of nondisclosure of cause of action the court need not dissect the plaintiffs case part by part, if a part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction.
Guiness Peat (Trading) Limited vs Md Fazlur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 242.
Order VII rule 11-
Although rejection of the plaint was prayed for, the plaint is returned to the filing advocate in exercise of inherent power as the Admiralty Court lacks jurisdiction and the plaint cannot be rejected by such a court, the provision for rejection of plaint having not been made applicable under the rule of the Admiralty Court.
Madina Vegetable and Oil Refinery Industries (Private) Limited vs MT Dolore’s 45 DLR 740.
Order VII rule 11-
Suit for declaration of ex parte decree fraudulent-Scope of such a suit-Cause of action to file and maintain such suit-falsity of claim cannot be a ground for setting aside an ex parte decree. Only when the plaintiff challenges an ex parte decree on the ground of fraudulent suppression of summons to deprive him of the opportunity of contesting the false claim in such a suit and the plaintiff can establish such allegation then such an ex parte decree can be set aside as fraudulent. The plaintiff having purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit which was decreed ex parte the impugned decree is binding on him. They have no cause of action for the suit.
Haji Md Ishaque and others vs Rupali Bank 43 DLR 621.
Order VII rule 11-
The Court is not required to look into maintainability of the suit at the time of hearing of injunction matter. Maintainability of the suit is to be decided after filing of the written statement and framing of any issue on such point.
Nasir Miah, Malik Nasir Soap Factory vs Md Anwar Hossain, Executive Officer, Commander Soap Factory Ltd 48 DLR 28.
Order VII rule 11-
There is no legal scope to reject the plaint unless the plaint itself shows the want of cause of action for the suit or the suit being barred by any law.
Abul Masud Khan vs Khan Mohammad Abdullah Rahmatullah 47 DLR 143.
Order VII rule 11-
When the petitioners failed to negative the findings of the High Court Division against their plea of malafide, the petition against maintaining the order of rejection of plaint is dismissed.
WB Industrial Corporation Ltd and others vs Deen Mohammad Rana and another 48 DLR (AD) 50.
Order VII rule 11-
The phrase “equity and good conscience” are not in Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the learned Single Judge wrongly imported this concept in the section which he was not permitted to do. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge suffers from irrelevant and rambling exercises bereft of legal acumen and hence the same is set aside.
Irfan Sayed (Md) vs Mrs Rukshana Matin and others 48 DLR (AD) 134.
Order VII rule 11-
The question of limitation in a suit is a mixed question of law and fact which can be decided only at the trial on taking evidence. In view of the reliefs prayed in the suit, the plaint cannot be rejected.
Shahabuddin (Md) & others vs Habibur Rahman and others 50 DLR (AD) 99.
Order VII rule 11-
The plaint could be rejected only when the court comes to the conclusion that even if all the averments made in the plaint are taken to be true still then the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief at all.
Mohsena Begum vs Abdus Sattar 50 DLR 29.
Order VII rule 11-
Court may look into the averments made in the plaint and cannot go beyond the same to find whether plaint is liable to be rejected or not.
Eastern Bank Ltd. vs Subordinate Judge and another 49 DLR 531.
Order VII rule 11-
In deciding the question as to whether the plaint should be rejected the Court is required to consider only the plaint assuming all the averments made therein to be correct, without taking into consideration the possible defence plea.
Nurunnessa and others vs Mohibuddin Chowdhury and others 49 DLR 234.
Order VII rule 11-
In an application under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code the statement in the plaint has to be looked into to determine ifthe suit is barredby any law. But under Article 34(5) it is not the statement in the plaint but the reliefs claimed in the suit which will determine whether the suit is entertainable or not.
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Rahman Textile Mills Ltd and others 51 DLR (AD) 221.
Order VII rule 11-
The defendant-appellant need not have filed applications under Order VII, rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. It could have maintained applications under Article 34(5) of President’s Order No. 128 of972, not for rejection of the plaint, but for not entertaining the suits.
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha vs Rahman Textile Mills Ltd and others 51 DLR (AD) 221.
Order VII rule 11-
In exercising this power the Court can look into the statements in the plaint alone. It cannot consider any fact stated in the written statement or any document produced by the defendant.
Khurshid Miah and another 52 DLR 614.
Order VII rule 11-
The petitioner having specifically raised the issue that liabilities of Group-B share holders are limited to extent of the shares .as subscribed by them and when averments made in the plaint show that the plaintiffs demanded Taka 17,39,380.70 from Group-B share holding, being 35% of the loss of Taka 52,70,802.00 suffered by the company, the plaint disclosed no cause of action for filing suit and the Subordinate Judge committed an error of law or justice in not rejecting the plaint.
Tanveerul Haque vs Unistar Shipping Limited and ors 52 DLR 215.
Order VII rule 11-
The Court while deciding application about rejection of plaint is not permitted in law to travel beyond the averments made in the plaint.
Abul Khair (Md) vs Pubali Bank Ltd and another 53 DLR (AD) 62.
Order VII rule 11-
Against the dismissal options were open to the plaintiff either to sue in a civil Court or to move in writ under Article 102 of the Constitution. He opted to sue in a civil Court. The decisions of the Courts below setting aside the order of returning the plaint therefore do not call for interference.
Sonali Bank and others vs Md Jalaluddin and another 53 DLR 48.
Order VII rule 11-
There is no hard and fast rule when an application for rejection of plaint is to be filed but ends of justice demands that it must be filed at the earliest opportunity.
Kazi (Md) Shahajan and another vs Md Khalilur Rahman Madbar and others 54 DLR (AD) 125.
Order VII rule 11-
The application made under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act is not a plaint. The application of the petitioner under Order VII rule 11 of the Code for rejection of such application is wholly misconceived.
Dhaka Leather Company Ltd vs Sikder Construction Ltd and anothe 54 DLR 357.
Order VII rule 11-
The Subordinate Judge could have split up the suit for trying the second cause which is for damages for defamatory statement and for implicating the plaintiff in a false case The claim on account of tort committed by the defendant can be tried by the civil Court.
Khandkar Abul Hussain vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 467.
Order VII rule 11-
It is not the relief which is claimed, rather it is the relief which can be given to the plaintif, that has to be looked into and considered in a plaint.
Shafi A Choudhury vs Pubali Bank Ltd and others 54 DLR 310.
Order VII rule 11-
Where a certain fact is brought to the notice of the Court, though not specifically mentioned in the plaint or crops up subsequent to the filing of the suit and accepted as true by both the parties, such a fact, though not referred to in the plaint, can be taken into consideration for deciding the question of rejection of a plaint.
Shafi A Choudhury vs Pubali Bank Ltd and others 54 DLR 310.
Order VII rule 11-
In a suit for damages and compensation where the plaint does not show how damages were suffered and what are those damages, the plaint is liable to be rejected in limine.
Nazim Habibuzzaman vs World Bank, and others 54 DLR 159.
Order VII rule 11-
In deciding the question as to whether a plaint is liable to be rejected, the Court is always required to peruse the plaint and the plaint only. A Court is not permitted to travel beyond the plaint to dig out grounds to reject a plaint. .
Shan Hosiery vs Bangladesh Jatiya Shamabaya Shilpa Samity Ltd and others 54 DLR 291.
Order VII rule 11-
When the nature of transaction becomes doubtful on the specific allegation made by the pre-emptor then the matter is required to be tested by adducing evidence in order to ascertain the nature of transaction and to decide the case properly.
Alfazuddin Mollah and others vs Md Almas Chokder and anr 56 DLR (AD) 179.
Order VII rule 11-
For the ascertainment of the cause of action court is required to read the plaint in its entirety.
Sunder Ali being dead his heirs Abdul Hannan and others vs Md Serajul Islam Sarker & others 56 DLR (AD) 210.
Order VII rules 11 and 13-
Rejection of plaint under r. 11 of Or. VII does not preclude a fresh suit under r. 13. But still rejection of a plaint should not be hastily made without affording opportunity to the plaintiff either to. cure the defect or to amend the plaint. The power of rejection of a plaint shall be exercised only if the Court comes to the conclusion on mere reading of the plaint that even if all the allegations are proved the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever.
Chairman, BISE vs Motijheel Model High School 46 DLR 485.
Order VII rule 11 & Order XIV rule 2-
Since the law imposes a duty to determine the question of maintainability of the suit as the preliminary issue the Subordinate Judge erred in passing the impugned order without considering whether the suit could be decided on the preliminary issue. Even his refusal to decide the preliminary issue on the question of maintainability of the suit is to be held as illegal and arbitrary.
Abdul Halim Talukder alias Chand Mia Talukder vs Md Hazrat Ali Talukder and others 49 DLR 564.
Order VII rule 11(a)-
It is now well settled by good authorities that a proceeding is though premature on the date of filing but with· the continuance of the proceeding becomes matured, such question of immaturity loses all defects and becomes cured.
Sardar Jan Mohammad and another vs Lutfannessa and others 56 DLR 514.
Order VII rule 11(a)(d)-
The questions of limitation and of res judicata raised in the application for rejecting the plaint are mixed questions of law and fact, which need thorough investigation on adequate evidence for arriving at a correct decision on framing specific issues.
Mahbubul Huq (Md) vs Md A Kader Munshi & others 52 DLR 194.
Order VII rule 11(b)(c)-
An order rejecting a plaint is a decree and as such appeal lies against such order. In case of rejection of plaint under clause (b) or ( c) it is difficult to get relief in an appeal. When a plaint is rejected for not supplying the requisite stamp papers within a time fixed by the court, as in such a case impugned order must be found to be a proper one. But if there is sufficient cause for not supplying the same within the time fixed, restoration of the plaint may be ordered in appropriate cases on an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Radha Rani Sadhu Kha vs Durga Rani Adhikari 47 DLR 360.
Order VII rule 11(d)-
Principles governing the rejection of plaint.-In the instant case it is concerned with clause (d) of rule 11 which provides that for rejecting the plaint the finding of the suit to be barred by any law must be based on the statement in the plaint. In other words, the plaint be rejected on that ground on the basis of statement made by the defendant in his pleading or in his application under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code.
Jalaluddin Ahmed vs Matiur Rahman Khan 41 DLR 77.
Order VII rule 11(d)-
There is nothing on record to show that the suit is barred by any lawThe finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is without any legal basis and not sustainable in law.
Ayezuddin Sheikh vs Abdul Karim Sheikh 42 DLR 154.
Order VII rule 11(d)-
In exercising the power of rejecting a plaint the Court can look into the statements of the plaint only. It cannot consider any fact stated in the written statement or any document produced by the defendant.
Sudhansu Kumar Barai vs Abdul Hashem 43 DLR 327.
Order VII rule 11(d)-
In the instant case where the plaintiff does not dispute the determination of her share as in the preliminary decree but disputes, on the ground of fraud, the actual allocation of share in the final decree drawn in earlier suit, the invocation of the rule of finality is beside the point.
Nannu Miah vs Mosammat Peer Banu Bibi 43 DLR 526.
Order VII rule 11(d)-
A plaint is liable to rejection where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
Chief Engineer Roads and Highways Department vs Concord Engineers and Construction Ltd 48 DLR 243.
Order VII rule 11(d)-
Questions of limitation and res judicata raised in the application for rejecting the point are mixed questions of law and fact which need thorough investigation on adequate evidence for arriving at a correct decision on framing specific issues by the trial Court.
Mahbubul Haque vs Md A Kader Munshi 52 DLR (AD) 49.
Order VII rule 11(d)-
The plaint of a suit for declaration that the election of the society is illegal and the Executive Committee constituted thereof void, cannot be rejected when the plaintiff challenged the validity of the election.
Abdul Hannan vs Managing Committee Mohammadia Market Baboshahi Bahumukhi Samabaya Samity Limited 55 DLR 409.
Order VII rule 11(d) and section 9-
The aggrieved member of the trade organisation must exhaust his remedies by way of reference to an Arbitration Tribunal before invoking the aid of the Civil Court.
Shaikh Ansar Ali & others vs Md Tofazzal Hossain and others 55 DLR 211.
Order VII rules 14 and 18-
Filing of document at late stage-Documents at a late stage may be filed with the leave of the court if they are authentic and not suspicious. It would be wise for the court to exercise discretion in favour of admitting such documents.
Moyezuddin Mondal vs Bena Rani Das 45 DLR 154.
Order VII rules 14 & 18-
In an appropriate case of non-filing of the documents at the time of filing of the plaint, if it appears to the court it is due to bonafide and genuine mistake, then the Court in its judicial discretion may grant leave considering the case to be one of exceptional circumstances.
MA Qasem vs Subordinate Judge, Artha Rin Adalat and others 52 DLR 341.
Order VII rules 14 & 18-
Non-filing of documents with plaint-No malafide or ill-motive could be attributed in not filing the document at the time of filing of the plaint-The new provision for such filing of documents has been added for the purpose of speedy disposal of cases but that does not mean that in case of a bonafide human error the Court will not be in a position to grant leave in unavoidable and exceptional circumstances to file necessary documents.
Afsaruddin Ahmed vs Banque Indosuez 44 DLR (AD) 136.
Order VIl rule 15-
A defendant is entitled to inspection of documents referred to in the plaint. Order rejecting application for such inspection is set aside and the plaintiff is directed to produce the documents in Court.
Abdul Jabbar Khan and others vs Sreela Sreejukteswar Radha Madhab Thakur Jiew 45 DLR 577.
Order VII rule 17 & Order VIII rule 9-
Although the provisions of Order VI, rule 17 may not strictly govern amendment in the written statement by an additional written statement the Court is entitled to apply the principles relating to amendment of the pleadings.
Abdur Rahman vs Sajjadur Rahman 51 DLR 420.
Order VII rule 15-
Admission of document- The policy underlying the Order is to exclude evidence the existence of which at the date of the suit is doubtful and as to the genuineness of which suspicion may arise because it was produced at the late stage. The subordinate judge exercised his discretion on sound judicial principle in refusing to admit the Kabuliyat at the late stage of the suit.
Sree Birendra Nath Singh vs Md Mokbul Sah 43 DLR 77.