Case Number Parties Short Description 1 Criminal Appeal(H) 12331/2019 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-MAR-26 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Maksudur Rahman Masud -Vs- The State Suspicion, however strong, is no substitute for proof, and in criminal law the prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The purpose of cross-examination is to assist the Court in bringing the truth to light by discovering or clarifying matters with which witnesses may wish to conceal or confuse for motives of partisanship. one witness was examined-in-chief, and her examination was adjourned after a few sentences were recorded in cross-examination. the probative value of the evidence might be very small and might even be disregarded. the confession of a co-accused cannot be used against the other co-accused, and the confession of a co-accused can be used against another co-accused if the said confession stands corroborated by other corroborative evidence. the confession of the co-accused, Shafiul Bashor Rakib, cannot be the sole basis for the conviction of the accused appellant, as the facts and circumstances of the instant case are not corroborated by other evidence. If a material witness who would unroll the genesis of incident is not convincingly brought to fore otherwise or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made by examining a witness who, though available is not examined, prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a serious deficiency and infirmity and withholding of a such a material and vital witness would oblige the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined he would not have supported the prosecution case as projected. In the instant case, the informant, i.e., P.W. 1, in his evidence stated that, upon hearing his hue and cries, an army vehicle carrying soldiers arrived and rescued him. However, the investigating agency did not deem it necessary to examine them as witnesses or record their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which constitutes gross irregularities and negligence on the part of the investigating agency. 2 Criminal Revision 1909/2021 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-MAR-26 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Habibur Rahman -Vs- The State and another The court did not arrived at any independent in finding as to metter the injury was grievious hurt and simple hurt on which injury grievious hurt and which in simple hurt to convict the accused petitioner under Section 326 of the Penal Code, the court must come to definite finding with reference to evidence on the record that the injury caused by the accused is a grievious hurt. An injury is grievous hurt if it falls within the meaning of grievous hurt as given in Section 320 of the Penal Code. there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the victim ever sustained permanent privation of sight of either eye, privation of hearing of either ear, privation of any member of joint destruction or permanant impairing of powers or any member of joint, permanant disfiguration of the head of face and in view of such facts and circumstances, we are unable to believe the contention of the prosecution that the injury sustained by the victim come under the mischief of section 326A or 326 of the penal code. the doctor, who issued the certificate, though, according to the prosecution, conducted treatment of the victim, was not examined, and no explanation was offered by the prosecution before the court as to why he was not examined. This court cannot presume the cause of injury of the victim as it cannot rely upon the Medical Certificate, as the said document was not proved in terms of the provisions of Section 45 of the Evidence Act,1872. As the cause of the victim’s injury has not been proved, in our view, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. while examining the accused appellants under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the trial Court failed to put the incriminating evidence against the accused appellants for the purpose of enabling them to explain any circumstance and thereby the accused appellants have been prejudiced. Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the accused of Criminal Procedure provides that the accused should be examined for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. But in the instant case no incriminating circumstance was put to the accused appellants. The razor allegadly used by the accused Shahid in the commission of the offence was not at all put to him while he was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby the accused appellant has been seriously prejudiced in conducting his defence in the trial. 3 Criminal Revision 2770/2025 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-MAR-26 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) S.S.M Jaker Ullah -Vs- The State and another No where within the four corners of sub-section (1A) has the legislature put a burden upon the payee to after exhausting the mode of service of notice under clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (1A) of the Act only then the payee can exhaust the mode of service of notice as prescribed under clause (c) of sub-section (1A) by paper publications. 4 Civil Revision 2973/2012 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 21-JAN-26 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Monirujjaman -Vs- Jinnatun Nesa, being died her heirs: Md. Mosharaf Hossain and others If the Court is satisfied that the compromise or agreement is lawful, the Court is to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. A Civil Revision Case may be compromised under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the terms of the compromise are lawful. 5 First Misc Appeal 204/2013 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 18-JAN-26 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Abdul Hannan Mollah and others -Vs_ Mohammad Amir Uddin and others When any aggrieved person files a Miscellaneous Case under Order 41, Rule 19(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure with a cogent explanation for non-appearance, it is the obligation of the court to re-admit the appeal. 6 Civil Revision 1587/2021 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 13-JAN-26 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Chattogram. -Vs- Mst. Safa Khatun died, leaving behind the legal heirs: Mohammad Shah Alam and others A simple suit for a declaration of title without any prayer for consequential relief is not maintainable. Unless a document is proved in accordance with law, such a document cannot be admitted into evidence forming the basis of a decree. Mere filing of a document is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of law. 7 Civil Revision 6124/2023 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 06-JAN-26 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Zalal Uddin Bhuiyan -Vs- Md. Samim Uddin Bhuiyan and others The Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an ex parte decree can be set aside on two grounds: (I) that the summons was not duly served or (II) that any sufficient cause prevented him from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. 8 Civil Revision 424/2022 (Md. Salauddin and another -Vs- Oli Mia and others.) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 06-JAN-26 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Sub-rule 2 of rule 9 of Order 22 of the code allows an abatement to be set aside despite a delay in making an application in time if it can be shown that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from continuing the action. At the same time, section 5 of the Limitation Act has been specifically made applicable to the condonation of delay. As a logical sequel, an abetment can be set aside at any time, even beyond the period prescribed for making an application in that behalf if sufficient cause is shown to explain the delay. when there has already been a decree determining the rights of the parties, finally, there is no question of any right to sue surviving. If the right to sue has already culminated and merged into a decree of the Court, and the Suit has also come to an end to that extent, then the terms of Order 22, rule 3 or 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not at all applicable. 9 Civil Revision 2361/2018 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 18-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Shamsher Ali and others -Vs- Mohiron Bibi being dead, his legal heirs: Monowar Hossain and others 10 Civil Revision 5499/2024 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 18-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Nazrul Islam and others -Vs- Monjil Miah and others 11 Civil Revision 769/2025 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 18-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Mosa. Nazmunnahar -Vs- Md. Asad Miah and others "This ground, we are afraid, is not available in rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata or not is a matter to be decided at the time of trial, as raised by the defendants, and the same cannot be decided from a reading of the plaint. The maintainability of the suit on the ground of resjudicata can very well be framed as an issue in the suit." 12 Civil Revision 6049/2023 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 17-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Israfil (Plabon) -Vs- Most. Asmaul Husana The scheme of Order 23, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to permit parties to amicably reach a lawful settlement, in writing and as a voluntary act on the part of the parties. The court can be instrumental in effecting an agreed compromise and attaching finality to it. When a judgment and decree passed based on a compromise cannot be challenged, the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful, i.e., it was void or voidable, has to approach the same court. 13 Civil Revision 5460/2003 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 17-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Kadbhanu Bibi and others -Vs- Abdul Jabbar Biswas being dead, his heirs: Md. Shahidul Alam and others If a joint property is recorded in a khatian in the name of all the co-sharers, but in the remarks column, possession of any plot recorded in one of the co-sharers affects the record that all the co-sharers of the khatian are entitled to get the plot as per their respective share. 14 Civil Revision 3504/2013 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 17-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Joinal Abedin Doctor -Vs- Munsi Humayun Kabir 15 Civil Revision 282/2024 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 10-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Dr. Mohammad Ali and another. -Vs- Begum Shahida Ahmed and others 16 First Misc Appeal 291/2019 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 09-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Abdul Haque being dead his legal heir: Md. Abdul Hannan -Vs- Abdur Rouf and others Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the requisite power to the appellate Court to re-admit an appeal dismissed for default, Moreover, the previous conduct of the appellant may be reprehensible, but the matter cannot be decided on the ground of mere previous conduct. 17 Civil Revision 3891/2018 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 09-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Arafat Hossain and another -Vs- Mohammad Bodruzzaman Ex-parte decree can be set aside on two grounds: (I) that the summons was not duly served or (II) that any sufficient cause prevented him from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. 18 Civil Revision 2192/2023 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 09-DEC-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Faruk Hossain Mondal -Vs- Most. Sathi Akter According to the Muslim Shariah Law, the husband is duty-bound to pay maintenance during the subsistence of the marriage. Maintenance shall include the `Iddat` period of 03 (three) months. 19 Civil Revision 6797/2023 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 02-NOV-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Sarwar Mirza and another -Vs- Sajedul Alam and Government of Bangladesh When time is not originally made of the essence of a contract for sale of land, one of the parties is not entitled afterwards by notice to make it of the essence, unless there has been some default or unreasonable delay by the other party. 20 Civil Revision 1887/2013 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 02-NOV-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Asma Akhter Khanom and another -Vs- Mst. Khaleda Akhter Khanom and others 21 Civil Revision 3824/2018 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 19-OCT-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Shahjahan Howlader and another -Vs- Abdul Quader Biswas being dead his legal heirs: Most. Rahima Khatun and others The plaintiff, as P.W.1, in his deposition, admitted that he came to know of the alleged Deed of Heba-bil-ewaj in 2001. Therefore, it appears that the plaintiff filed the instant suit after 12(twelve) years of his knowledge of the alleged Deed of Heba-bil-ewaj. Consequently, we are of the firm view that the courts below rightly and judiciously considered the evidence on record, found that the suit was barred by limitation as per the provision so enumerated in Article 91 of the Limitation Act,1908. 22 Civil Revision 4447/1998 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 14-OCT-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Local Government Engineering Directorate, Narsingdi, represented by the Executive Engineer, Narsingdi. -Vs- Abdus Sobhan being dead his legal heirs: Mrs. Laki Begum and others The requiring body, preferred a cross-appeal against the Judgment and order of the Arbitration Court. However, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to agitate the mixed question of fact and law, as there is no provision in the Ordinance of 1982 to make the requiring body either a necessary party or a proper party to the arbitration proceeding for compensation to the landowner. 23 Civil Revision 4710/2023 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 14-OCT-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Monir Hossain -Vs- Kamrun Nahar According to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no court shall stay the proceedings of a previously instituted suit if the subject matter is the same. 24 Civil Revision 1758/2025 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 14-OCT-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Shyamal Kantyi Dutta -Vs- Arunangshu Dutta and others A plaint of a suit cannot be rejected before filing the written statement. 25 Civil Revision 3246/2019 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 14-OCT-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Khairul Basar and others -Vs- Jotirmoy Saha Ray and others. It is the settled cardinal principle of law that, in order to succeed in a case under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff must prove his dispossession from the suit land, and the suit must be filed within 6 (six) months from the alleged dispossession from the suit land. 26 Civil Revision 628/2020 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 14-OCT-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Sultan Mia and others -Vs- Omar Kitab and others In a suit for a permanent injunction, the court may incidentally inquire into the prima facie title of the parties, unless the plaintiffs` possession is clearly established by the evidence, in which case the plaintiffs cannot obtain a decree for a permanent injunction. A simple suit for a permanent injunction should not be allowed to be used as a testing device for ascertaining title. 27 Civil Revision 4484/2016 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-OCT-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Mosammat Morium Khatun -Vs- Md. Akhiluddin Sheikh and others Under the new law, the homestead is exempted from all legal process, and the transferee is not liable to be evicted therefrom by any means. 28 Civil Revision 2813/1998 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 08-OCT-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Amjad Ahamed and others -Vs- Samuj Ali and others The plaintiffs, being year-to-year leaseholders, had no locus standi to bring any suit before any jurisdiction of the courts of the country. 29 Civil Revision 3894/2022 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 17-SEP-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Mosammat Julekha Parvin -Vs-Sahnaj Parvin Papia and others The pre-emptor, though a co-sharer in the jama, was not a co-sharer in the land (i.e., shop) transferred to the opposite party, No.1 Bidhan Chandra Dev, because of the fact that the shop transferred is well demarcated as per the admission of the pre-emptor himself. since the pre-empte seller/vendor, before transferring the case land to the preempte purchaser, separated her Jama of the case land under the law and paid tax of the case land to the Government based on the mutation khatian, the pre-emptor is no longer a co-sharer of the case holding. 30 Civil Revision 4517/2023 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 21-AUG-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Mohammad Nurul Alam Chowdhury alias Ukil and another -Vs- Sree Shibu Prashad Dutta and others Sub-section 3 of Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act stipulates that an application for preemption must be accompanied by a deposit of the entire consideration money of the property transferred, as stated in the notice under Section 89, together with compensation at the rate of 10% thereof. The statutory deposit being a condition precedent to the application being entertained, its non-compliance renders the application liable to be dismissed. The appellate court below failed to consider that the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act,1950, is a special law wherein the statutory provision for deposition of consideration money with compensation for filing a case for preemption under the Act is provided as a condition precedent with consequence. 31 Civil Revision 3594/2008 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 19-AUG-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Abdul Sattar Md. Ansar Ali, being dead, his heirs: Faridunnesa and others -Vs- Shamsuzzaman Khondaker and another That against the wrong record of rights, the person whose interest is affected is entitled to file suit within six years from the date of final publication or the date of knowledge of such wrong records of rights as per provision so enumerated in Article 120 of the limitation Act. Therefore, without making a further prayer for recovery of khas possession of the suit land, the suit is not maintainable. 32 Civil Revision 584/2024 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 17-AUG-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Ahamed Akbar Sobhan -Vs- Unideb Trading (BD) Ltd, represented by its Director Tahmina Akter and others. If the proposed amendment is allowed even condoning the delay in filing the application under Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint, the introduction of certain new facts and subsequent cause of action different from those made in the plaint will change the nature and character of the suit. The amendment of the pleadings is that all the controversies between the parties as far as possible should be included and multiplicity of the proceedings avoided. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with decisions of the Courts below. 33 Civil Revision 3891/2010 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 12-AUG-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Enayet Karim and others -Vs- Amiruzzaman and others 34 Civil Revision 2856/2016 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 31-JUL-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Alimuddin Pramanik and others -Vs- Most. Mohua Bewa and others In case of a colourable transaction, the onus of proof is entirely lies upon the party, who assert that the transfer is a sub-kabala in disguise of a deed of exchange/re-conveyance under section 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act [I of 1872]. That the deed-in-question is purely a deed of reconveyance, not a sub-kabala and as such it is not pre-emptable under the ambit of section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. 35 Civil Revision 2407/2024 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 08-JUL-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Ala Boxh Khan, being dead, his legal heirs: Mst. Rahela Begum @ Raihela Begum @ Rahela Bewa and others -Vs- Md. Mojnur Rahman It manifests from the above provisions that an ex parte judgment and decree can be set aside on two grounds: (I) that the summons was not duly served or (II) that any sufficient cause prevented him from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. 36 Civil Revision 2749/2009 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 01-JUL-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Abu Sayed Mia. -Vs- Mahfuza Khatun and others Express reference to Talab-i-mowasibat is necessary when the second demand, namely Talab-i-ishhad, is made. The Rules of Mohammadan law provide that the formalities are to be strictly performed by the preemptor. the preemptor-opposite party has failed to discharge his onus of proof and the trial Court below in the observation and findings on the basis of evidences on records, rightly held that the deed-in-question is purely a deed of exchange not a sub-kabala and as such it is not pre-emptable under the ambit of Section 236 of the Mohammadan Law. 37 Civil Revision 4413/2017 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 26-JUN-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Muhibur Rahman and another -Vs- Mst. Rasheda Akhter and another Onus in a suit for declaring a Heba-bil-ewaz deed in favour of the defendant was forged, and without consideration, the initial onus was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff, having discharged that onus, is shifted on the defendant to prove that there was the intention of making the heba-bil-ewaz and that the consideration was paid. The onus of proving the formalities in connection with the deed is upon the person who upholds the transaction. The defence side wants the courts to believe that the sale deed Ext.2, the basis of Ext. A is a bonafide document for valuable consideration, but no evidence in this regard having been adduced, the said Ext. cannot be allowed to stand. The minor discrepancy in deposition of a witness, which is an irrelevant point, has not impacted the trustworthiness of the witness. 38 Civil Revision 3734/2024 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 25-JUN-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Shohidul Islam Biddut and another -vs- Sultan Ahammod Commissioner to confine his inquiry to the points asked for and report on them only without under-taking other work at the request of the parties-Court not at precluded from considering the Commissioner`s report afresh again in the light of fresh materials-Brought in the record by the parties mere acceptance of report should not give apprehension in the mind of the litigant. 39 Civil Revision 2629/2016 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 19-JUN-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Shafi Uddin, being died his heirs: Md. Shariful Islam and another -Vs- Md. Moklesur Rahman Molla and others. It is not at all possible to justify whether one thump impression matches with other by naked eye other than with the help of modern technique and enlargement of impression for which the expert is the right person who can give the opinion upon critical analyses in the cases cited above. 41 Civil Revision 4190/1999 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 27-MAY-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Ansar Ali, being dead, his legal heirs: Md. Barek Ali and others. Vs Md. Md. Abu Bakar Siddique and others. When a suit is barred by law, the court can dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 and also take recourse to section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 42 Civil Revision 3973/2023 (Abdul Goni Sheikh, being dead, his legal heir: Abdul Hannan Sheikh and others -Vs- Md. Safiul Azam and others) অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 25-MAY-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) The above considerations in the light of the relevant case-law lead to the following enunciations: (1) that the necessity of making a second demand, called the talab-i-istishhad, is dispensed with if the first demand, called the talab-i-mawasibat, was made in the presence of the vendor or the vendee or on the premises sold and in the presence of witnesses who heard that demand, even though there was no invocation of those witnesses at the time, and (2) that the necessity of making a reference to the first demand at the time of making the second demand is dispensed with if the first demand was made in the presence of the vendor or the vendee or on the premises sold. If the first demand is made in the presence of witnesses of the vendor or vendee, or on the premises sold and in the presence of witnesses who heard the demand, it was not necessary to mention the fact of the first demand at the time of the Talab-i-isshad. We can sum up in this way that the case laws declared by any superior court other than Bangladesh including Pakistan after 25th March, 1971 (that is after independence of Bangladesh) and that of India after 13th August, 1947 (that is after partition of Pakistan) are not applicable in our jurisdiction as binding precedents. 43 Civil Revision 2278/2024 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 14-MAY-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Chowdhury Md. Abul Hasan Ibn Kashem alias Abu Md. Bin Kashem Chowdhury -Vs- Chowdhury Md. Abu Nasar Ibn Kashem and others A party may be considered a necessary party after fulfilling two conditions. First, there must be a right to some relief against him regarding the matter involved in the suit. 44 Civil Revision 2824/2024 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 08-MAY-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Abdul Hamid being dead, his heirs Md. Monju Miah and others -Vs- Md. Siddique Miah being dead, his heirs Kolpona Khatun and others The homestead of an owner in a rural area is exempted from all legal processes, rather than in order to get such protection, the homestead must be in a rural area as per the proviso so enumerated in section 6 of the land reform Ordinance 1984. Any person, who is in possession of a homestead, will be an `owner` and enjoy the protection under the Ordinance. 45 Civil Revision 5925/2022 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 28-APR-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Yasmin and others. -Vs- Kolim Ullah and others The record of rights is not a document of title. It does not create or extinguish title to land. 46 Civil Revision 2528/2021 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 27-APR-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Lutfun Nesa -Vs- Feli Nessa and others. A person, if not authorise by the plaintiff or defendant, except husband and wife, could not depose on his behalf in the Court, if depose, he would be treated as incompetent witness. ‘‘In a suit for partition the co-sharers are necessary parties in the sense that in the absence of any such co-sharer the Judgment which will be given in such a suit may be rendered infructuous at the option of the excluded party.’’ 47 Civil Revision 1433/2022 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 23-APR-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Shaharavanu being dead, her legal heirs: Md. Habib Mir @ Mir Habibur Rahman and others. -Vs- Sheikh Humayun Kabir and others. An ex parte decree can also be set aside by a regular suit if it is provided that there was suppression of summons and the defendant was prevented from defending the suit by reason of fraud. 48 Civil Revision 5838/2002 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 17-APR-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Ashir Uddin Akand -Vs- The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the deputy commissioner, Bogura, and others That fraud vitiates all judicial proceeding. “After passing the final order on 7.4.213 rejecting the substantive application under sections 107 and 233 of the Act, 1994 and the order having been sealed and signed, the Company judge became functus officio and had no power to assume jurisdiction by way of modification of the said order; he could do so only on a proper application for review of the order.” 49 Civil Revision 4896/2011 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 17-APR-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Md. Ruhul Amin -Vs- Md. Osman Ali 50 Civil Revision 1132/2023 অনুবাদ (Google) Uploaded on : 15-APR-25 From : Bijoy 71 Building Court No. 2 (3rd Floor) Shaishir Ahmed Shahnawaz -Vs- Tureen Afroz It is the settled proposition of law that in the case of the temporary injunction, the court is to see whether a fair and arguable case exists in favor of issuing an injunction, and the court needs not to enter into the merit of the case.