Village
Courts Ordinance [LXI of 1976]

Section 3—

The
cumulative effect of the provisions made in the Ordinance and the Rule is that
the amount of loss claimed by the complainant vests jurisdiction in the
Criminal Court or in the Village Court as the case may be and not the finding
of the Court as to the amount of loss inasmuch as nowhere in the Ordinance or
in the· Rules there is anything to show that the finding of the Court vests
jurisdiction in it.

Kazi Motiur
Rahman vs Din Islam 43 DLR 128.

 

Section 3—

The
jurisdiction of the Court is conferred by law and it never depends upon the
consent of the parties. It is thus evident that the Assistant Judge acted
illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned decree.

Rokeya Begum
vs Md Abdur Rahman 50 DLR 271.

 

Sections 3 and 8—

Unanimous
decision of a Village Court under challenge in civil Court—­Whether plaint
could be rejected in view of finality of decision of the Village Court—In the
face of allegation in the plaint that the respondents did not nominate their
representatives in the Village Court the plaint cannot be rejected. To
determine the truth of this allegation evidence is necessary and this can be
available only in the course of trial of the suit.

Kazi Mobarak
Ali vs Mohammad Yeasin Majumder 43 DLR (AD) 171.

 

Rule 3(2)(e) & (f)—

‘The
cumulative effect of the provisions made in the Ordinance and the Rule is that
the amount of loss claimed by the complainant vests jurisdiction in the
Criminal Court or in the Village Court as the case may be and not the finding
of the Court as to the amount of toss inasmuch as nowhere in the Ordinance or
in the Rules there is anything to show that the finding of the Court vests
jurisdiction in it.

Kazi Motiur
Rahman vs Din Islam 43 DLR 128.

 

Section 8—

Case against
Village Court’s decision—Where the Village Court makes its decision by a majority
of four to one, it is final and no case against such decision lies before the
Munsif. In this view the Subordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction .in
entertaining the appeal from the order of the Munsif.

Mafizur
Rahman vs Joynal Abedin 44 DLR 158.

 

Section 8—

High Court
Division cannot in exercise of powers under section 561A CrPC interfere with an
order passed by a Village Court or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section
8 of the Village Courts Ordinance.

Sydul Haque
vs Abul Kashem 38 DLR 14.

 

Section 8(3)—

There is no
express provision in the Ordinance barring the jurisdiction of a civil Court to
question the legality or propriety of the Village—Court’s decision—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—Appellate (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 Marumder 41 DLR (AD) 6.

 

 

Village Courts Ordinance

(LXI of 1976)

 

S. 3(i)—Title to
immovable property beyond the jurisdiction of Village Courts but possession
thereof can be recovered through such Courts.

Civil suits which may be heard by the Village Court have been shown in
Part II of the Schedule. Suit for title to an immovable property stands
excluded there from; but possession of such an immovable property may be
recovered by the Village Court subject to establishment of title by an
independent suit as indicated in section 3(3) of the Ordinance.

Abdul Hoque Vs. Mokbul Hossain Mollah and anr. (1980) 32 DLR 8.

 

S. 5 (Part II of the Schedule) Party claimed Taka
1000.00 as compensation for forceful dispossession from his property—Transfer
of the case by the S.D.O. illegal—Village Court can not decide question of
title to the property.

Md. Sekandar Ali Sardar Vs. Chairman, Village Court (1981) 33 DLR 201

 

S. 8—Decisions of Village Courts when cannot be questioned.

The question is whether the Supreme Court or for that matter any Civil
Court got jurisdiction to question the decision of a Village Court when the decision
is unanimous or by majority of four to one members of the said Court. Section 8
of the Village Courts Ordinance provides that if the decision of a Village
Court is unanimous or by a majority of four to one, the decision shall be
binding on the parties and shall be enforceable in accordance with the
provisions of this Ordinance; but if the decision of a Village Court is by a
majority of three to two, any party may, within thirty days of decision, apply
to the Sub divisional Magistrate, in the case of an offence specified in Part I
of the Schedule of the Ordinance, and to the Munsif in respect of a matter
specified in Part II of the Schedule. The impugned decision of the Village
Court cannot be questioned by any court, civil or criminal.

Abdul Hoque Vs. Mokbul Hossain Mollah (1980) 32 DLR 8.

 

S. 15 (Part I of the Schedule)—Transfer of a (criminal) case by the S.D.O.

Section 15 of Village Courts Ordinance shows that a Sub-Divisional
Magistrate can transfer a case relating to Part I of the Schedule provided the
Sub- Divisional Magistrate considers that the public interest and the ends of
justice demands Its trial in a criminal court.

Md. Sekandar Ali Sarker Vs. Chairman, Village Court (1981)33 DLR 201.

 

S. 15(1)—Village Court’s order decreeing the suit
passed in contravention of the S. D. 0’s order staying further proceeding, even
if not aware of ii, is illegal—Such decree will have to be set aside by a
competent court.

Zillur Rahman Sarkar Vs. Abu Bakkar Siddique @ Siddique Ali Pk (1980) 32
DLR 292.

 

Schedule Part I.

Offence of theft—Village Court can award compensation.

Theft by removal of any movable property which is punishable under
section 379 of the Penal Code is triable by the Village Court which may award
only compensation. In a suit on similar facts the Village Court may also direct
payment of compensation for wrongfully taking or damaging a movable property.

Abdul Haque Vs. Maqbul Hossain Mollah (1980)32 DLR 9.

—Civil Court has no jurisdiction over Village Court’s decision awarding
compensation for removal of paddy—Remedy may be sought under Article 102 of the
Constitution of Bangladesh. Ibid.

 

Village Courts (Amendment) Ordinance (VIII of 1978)

(Schedule Part I)

 

The Village Court Ordinance provides that a case u/s. 379 BPC was
triable by the Village Court when the property involved did not exceed 5000/-

By subsequent Ordinance No. 8 of 1978 dated 13.2.78 the value of the
property involved in a case u/s. 379 BPC triable by the Village Court was
raised to Tk. 5,000/-

The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of offence u/s. 379 PC on 26.12.76. Offence u/s. 147 BPC is made Ui-
able by a Village Court when the persons involved did not exceed 10.

Only 10 persons being involved in the present case on a charge u/s. 147
of the Penal Code the offence is triable by the Village Court.

Abul Kalam Vs. Abdul Mazid (1980) 32 DLR 221.

 

Village Courts (Amendment) Ordinance (IV of 1979)

Item 3 of Part I of the Schedule.

 

Village Court’s jurisdiction to try cases for theft where the property
involved is valued at Tic. 5000.00—Magistrate trying a case of theft the value
of the property involved being less than Tk. 5000.00—Magistrate has no
jurisdiction—The order of Conviction by the Magistrate being illegal provision
of s. 529 CrP Code cannot be called in and in support of Magistrate’s order.

Akhtar
Rahim Vs. State, Sultan Ahmed, son of Miajan Mollah (1983) 35 DLR 100. 

 

VILLAGE COURTS ORDINANCE, 1976

(LXI OF 1976)

 

Sections—3 and 8

Jurisdiction of civil
Court—Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide whether Village
Court acted in accordance with the provisions of Village Court
Ordinance—Village Court cannot try any case where interest of a minor defendant
is involved—If the Village Court has no initial jurisdiction to try any case,
in that event question of its finality does not arise at all.

Md. Basa Mondal Vs. Md. Sahuj-uddin. 2 BLD (HCD) 147

Ref: 32 DLR 292—distinguished.

 

Section—7

Village Court—Has
nothing to do with the question of title and by any decision of the Village
Court the question of title remains totally unaffected.

Md. Sekendar Au Sarkar and others vs. Chairman, Village Court and
others, 1 BLD (HCD) 180.

 

Section—15

Village Court—S.D.M.
has no power to transfer a civil suit pending in a Village Court to another
Village Court.

Md. Sekendar Ali Sarkar and others Vs. Chairman, Village Court and –
others, 1 BLD (HCD) 180.