High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Moniruzzaman Bari and others v Kamruzzaman Miah and others
Civil Revision 1/2026 · Decided 27 April 2026
The plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction in a title suit was rejected by the trial court. In their civil revision before the District Judge, Brahmanbaria, he refused their application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an ad-interim injunction. The plaintiffs obtained a Rule from the High Court Division under section 115(4), which ordered status quo as to possession and directed the District Judge to dispose of the revision within one month. He did not do so in time, and the High Court Division called for a written explanation. He offered an unconditional apology, citing miscommunication by staff, and reported that he had since disposed of the revision, affirming the trial court's order. The High Court Division accepted the explanation as true and genuine and exonerated him. As the revision had been disposed of, the Rule had become infructuous. It was discharged, the status quo order vacated, and the parties directed to take steps to conclude the trial early.
- Q1
Whether a Rule challenging the District Judge's refusal of an ad-interim injunction in a pending civil revision survived once that civil revision was itself disposed of.
- Where the civil revision in which an ad-interim injunction was refused has itself been disposed of, a Rule challenging that refusal becomes infructuous.
- A party aggrieved by the final order in the civil revision may take recourse to law against that order.
- The District Judge's written explanation for failing to dispose of the revision within the time directed was accepted as true and genuine, and he was exonerated.
- The interim order of status quo granted when the Rule was issued was vacated.
The aggrieved party by the order no.3 dated 07.04.2026 passed in Civil Revision No.42 of 2026 by the learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria may take recourse of law but the instant Rule has become infractuous.
In the court’s own words.
Civil Revision 1/2026, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 3 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
Present:
Mr. Justice Md. Riaz Uddin Khan
Civil Revision No. 01 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF :
An application under section 115(4) of the Code of
Civil Procedure
-And-
In the Matter of:
Moniruzzaman Bari and others
… Plaintiff-Petitioners
Versus
Kamruzzaman Miah and others
… Defendant-Opposite parties
Dr. Kazi Aktar Hamid, Advocate with
Mr. A.Q.M. Sohel Rana, Advocate and
Ms. Farzana Hossain, Advocate
… For the petitioners
Mr. Md. Nurul Islam, Advocate
… For the Opposite Party No. 1
Judgment on: 27.04.2026
Md. Riaz Uddin Khan, J:
1This Rule was issued on an application under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure against opposite party No.1 to show cause as to why the impugned order No.1 dated 18.11.2025 passed by the District Judge, Brahmanbaria in Civil Revision No.42 of 2025 rejecting an application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for ad-interim injunction should not be set aside and or such other or further order or orders should not be passed as to this Court may deem fit and appropriate.
2At the time of issuance of the Rule the parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of possession of the suit land for a period of 03 (three)
3month with direction upon the learned District Judge to dispose of the Civil Revision No.42 of 2025 within 1 (one) month from date.
4It appears that the learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria failed to dispose of the Civil Revision No.42 of 2025 pending before him within time as directed by this Court and this Court by order dated 12.03.2026 asked the learned District Judge to submit a written explanation of his failure with further direction to dispose of the Civil Revision No.42 of 2025 within 20.04.2026 and to apprise this Court. Accordingly the learned District Judge by a written explanation sought unconditional apology for not disposing the Civil Revision earlier within time as there was a miscommunication and initiated process against the staffs who were responsible for the miscommunication and apprised this Court, with a copy of the judgment and order dated 07.04.2026, that he has already disposed of the Civil Revision No.42 of 2025. The learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria begs mercy of this Court and undertook that in future he would be very cautious and vigilant in complying with any order of this Court.
5The written explanation given by the learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria appears to be true and genuine and he is exonerated from the charge of failure to comply with the order passed by this Court in time.
6Be that as it may, it turns out from Order No.3 dated 07.04.2026 that the learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria disposed of the Civil Revision No.42 of 2025 rejecting the Revision and thereby affirming the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the trial court in
Title Suit No. 110 of 2025. It may be mentioned here that the present civil revision before this Court has been filed challenging the Order No.01 dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria in Civil Revision No.42 of 2025 rejecting an application for ad-interim temporary injunction arising out of that civil revision which has been filed against the order of rejection of temporary injunction prayer dated 18.09.2025 by the trial court in Title Suit No.110 of 2025. Since the Civil Revision itself has been disposed of, the interim order has become infractuous. The aggrieved party by the order no.3 dated 07.04.2026 passed in Civil Revision No.42 of 2026 by the learned District Judge, Brahmanbaria may take recourse of law but the instant Rule has become infractuous.
7In the result the Rule issued by this Court on 05.01.2026 is discharged as being infractuous. The interim order of status-quo passed by this Court stands vacated.
8The parties are directed to take steps before the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible.
9Communicate the judgment and order at once. Ziaul Karim Bench Officer
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
