Judgment : High Court Division Full List
 
Case Type
Case/Tender Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Mst. Zamena Khatun and others ... Opponent-Petitioners -Versus- Umme Kulsum and others ... Applicant-Opposite Parties
Discharged
2
Md. Abul Hossain and others versus Md. Khoda Baksh Hazra and others
First Appeal No. 209 of 1998 is dismissed, First Appeal No. 287 of 1999 is allowed and First Appeal No. 59 of 2025 is dismissed for non prosecution
3
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, Md. Abdul Hakim Miah and Mosammat Belayetonnessa being dead their legal hires: 2(a) Md. Al-Mamoon and others versus Respondent No. 1, Abdul Goffer Miah, being dead, his legal heirs: 1(a) Most. Zaida Begum and others
Allowed
4
Ahsanul Haque Tota Vs. Sushil Sana and others
Appeal is dismissed.
5
Md. Haider Ali Molla @ Haider Ali Molla Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Rule is made absolute.
6
Tapan Kanti Dey Vs Government of Bangladesh and others
Rule is discharged.
7
Md. Jahangir Hossain and others
Rule is discharged.
8
Nur Alam Khan Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Rule is discharged.
9
Bir Muktijoddha Sohrab alias Budu Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Liberation War Affairs and others
Rule is made absolte
10
Abdul Ali alias Dhayennuddin Vs Deputy Commissioner and others
Dismissed
11
Fokhrul Hasan vs The Administrator, Sylhet City Corporation, Nagar Bhaban, Sylhet-3100 and others
Disposed of
12
Md. Jamal Uddin, General Secretary, Chattogram Bandar Byaboharkari Sramik Karmachari Union vs The Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (In writ petition No. 4447 of 2025 and Chattogram Bandar Byaboharkari Sramik Karmachari League and another vs The Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (In writ petition No. 8826 of 2023)
13
Abdul Aziz -Versus- The State
14
Md. Moktarul Islam alias Md. Moktarul Is: -Versus- The State
15
Abul Hossain and others -Versus- The State
16
Haroon or Rashid -Versus- The State
17
Md. Abdul Karim -Versus- The State
18
Mamunur Rashid @ Abdullah Al Mamun -Versus- The State and another
19
Md. Kabil Hossain Kazi -Versus- The State and another
20
Md. Jashijul Hoque -Versus- The State and another
21
Md. Rofiqul Islam -Versus- The State and another
22
Md. Abdul Latif being dead his legal heirs 1(a) Saleha Begum and others Vs. The Government and others
Absolute
23
Shahera Begum and others Vs. Md. Sekander Hayat alias Abdul Jalil Miah and others
Dismissed
24
Taslimuddin Ahmed being dead his heirs:- Ferdous Ahmed and others Vs. Md. Habibullah, Manager, Dhaka Nowab Estate, Court of Wards and another
Dismissed
25
Kutubuddin Miah Vs. Surjiban Chandra Sirker and others
Dismissed
26
Mahfuzur Rahman Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Dismissed
27
Shamsun Nahar and others Vs. Eastern Housing Ltd. and others
Dismissed
28
Begum Roqaiya Hossain and others Vs. Ummul Fateh (Khuku Moni) and others
Dismissed
29
Airtel Bangladesh Limited -Versus- Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and another
Appeal dismissed
30
Fanindra Chandra Roy and others Vs. Sree Bhabesh Chandra Roy and others
Dismissed
31
S. Alam Vegetable Oil Limited -Versus- The Commissioner, Customs, Excise
Rules are dicharged
32
Buildtrade Engineering -Versus- Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and others
Absolute-in-part
33
Sartaaj Steel Mills Limited and others -Versus- Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka and others
Rule Absolute
34
M/s. Integral Electric Company -Versus- Bangladesh Bank and others
Rule Discharged
35
Md. Nur Islam and others ...Appellants. -Versus- Bodu Mia and others ....Respondents.
Article 95 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act stipulates the period of limitation of filing a suit to set aside a decree obtained by fraud or for other relief on the ground of fraud and said period is three years which begins to run when the fraud become known to the party wronged. This suit comes under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. An ex-parte decree can be set aside by filing application under Order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the limitation for filing such application is 30 days from the date of ex-parte decree or where the summons has not been duly served, 30 days from the date when the defendants came to know about the ex-parte decree.

Moreover, section 10 of the Code enacts a rule of procedure pure and simple and as such a decree passed in contrary to section 10 is not a nullity and cannot be disregarded in another suit as per decision of the case of Jamani Kanta Roy Chowdhury and ors. vs. Aswini Kumar Haldar and ors. reported in 12 DLR 755.
36
Sree Dipok Ranhjan Kar .....Appellant. -Versus- Sree Babul Ranjan Kar ......Respondent.
Thus, after considering the question from different angles, we are of the view that the contentions proceeding for grant or refusal of probate or letters of administration is not a suit in substance and the order in the said proceeding is not a decree, as it does not fulfil the ingredients of decree as defined under the Code. There is no requirement in law that an order in a contentious proceeding should be followed by a decree. In that view of the matter, a decree is not required in law, to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal under section 299 of the Succession Act and as such, this appeal cannot be held to be incompetent due to non-filing of a copy of a decree along with the memorandum of appeal.

The provisions of sections 19-C, 19-H and 19-I of the Court Fees Act, 1870 clearly suggest that the court-fees according to the valuation fixed under section 19-H of the Act will be payable at a stage if and when an order entitling the grant of probate or letters of administration would be made and not any previous stage.


The provisions of sections 19-C, 19-H and 19-I of the Court Fees Act, 1870 clearly suggest that the court-fees according to the valuation fixed under section 19-H of the Act will be payable at a stage if and when an order entitling the grant of probate or letters of administration would be made and not any previous stage.



Above citations clearly suggest that if the evidence adduced is not succeeded in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; if the dispositions made in the will appears to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances, or, if the will otherwise indicate that the said dispositions is not the result of the testator`s free will and mind, such legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. Moreover, even if the caveator does not raise the question of testamentary capacity i.e the testator had full sense, he was in sound mind and he understood the nature and effect of his action in putting his signature or placing his mark on the document, yet the propounder is not exonerated from the incumbent duty to prove that the testator had sound and disposing mind and that he fully understood the nature and effect of his action in executing the will. Moreover, all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator.
37
Md. Ahsanul Haque vs. The state and another
Discharged
38
Md. Ahsanul Haque vs. The state and another
Discharged
39
Md. Ahsanul Haque vs. The state and another
Discharged
40
Md. Ahsanul Haque vs. The state and another
Discharged
41
Md. Ahsanul Haque vs. The state and another
Discharged
42
Md. Ahsanul Haque vs. The state and another
Discharged
43
Md. Ahsanul Haque vs. The state and another
Discharged
44
Md. Abdul Awal-Vs-The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industry and others
Disposed of
45
Sylhet Gas Fields Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Md. Mijanur Rahman-Vs-The Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
Discharged
46
Md. Aminul Islam-Vs-Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others
Discharged
47
Mohammad Alam and others-Vs-The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education and others
Absolute
48
A.B.M. Ziaul Karim-Vs-VERSUSGovernment of Bangladesh, represented by the Senior Secretary, Public Administration Division, Ministry of Home Affairs and others
Absolute
49
Mohammad Joynal Abedin and others vs Marcantile Bank Ltd. Banani Branch and others
50
Mohammad Azim Uddin and others vs The Government of Bangladesh, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariate, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others
This Site is Visited :