High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Bulu Mia v Saiya Sultana Binu and others
Civil Revision 1808/2026 · Decided 9 August 2026
The second wife and children of a deceased man filed a suit for declaration of title and partition of his property against his children by his first wife. The plaintiffs applied under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint to add further lands said to have been bought by the deceased under registered kabla deeds. The Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Dhaka allowed the application the same day. Defendant No. 21 obtained a Rule in revision, arguing that he had not been served with the application or heard. The High Court Division noted that only defendant No. 27 was present that day and had been served without objecting. It observed that a partition suit fails unless all joint property is brought into the hotchpotch, that pleadings may be amended at any stage unless an accrued right is defeated, and that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit. The genuineness of the deeds was left for trial. The Rule was discharged.
- Q1
Whether the trial court erred in allowing an amendment of the plaint in a partition suit, adding further properties of the deceased, without the petitioning defendant being served or heard.
- A suit for partition must fail if every piece of joint (ejmaly) property is not brought into the hotchpotch and all co-sharers are not impleaded.
- The Code of Civil Procedure is liberal about amendment, and pleadings may be amended at any stage unless the amendment would defeat a right already accrued to the opposite party.
- An amendment adding further properties of the deceased did not change the nature or character of the partition suit.
- Allegations that the newly relied-on kabla deeds are forged are to be determined by the trial court on evidence at trial.
- The defendants may file an additional written statement to meet the claims introduced by the amendment.
The pleadings of a Civil Suit can be amended at any stage of the proceedings and the only exception to not allow amendment of the pleadings is that no such amendment would defeat the right already accrued in favour of the opposite party.
In the court’s own words.
Civil Revision 1808/2026, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 5 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Present:
Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman
And
Ms. Justice Tamanna Rahman Khalidi
CIVIL REVISION NO.1808 OF 2026
In the matter of:
An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
And
Md. Bulu Mia
… Petitioner
-Versus-
Saiya Sultana Binu and others
… Opposite parties
Mr. Uzzal Bhowmick, Advocate with
Mr. Rezwan Hossain Siffat, Advocate
…. For the petitioner.
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Biswas, Advocate with
Ms. Sougata Guaha, Advocate
…. For the opposite party Nos.1-5.
Mr. Farid Hossain, Advocate
…. For the opposite party No.6.
Heard on 04.08.2026 and Judgment on 09.08.2026
S. M. Kuddus Zaman, J:
1On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order No.143 dated 26.04.2026 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Dhaka in Title Suit No.80 of 2023 should not be set aside and/or pas such order or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2Facts in short are that four plaintiffs the second wife, sons and daughters of deceased Afzal Hossain instituted above suit for declaration of title and partition of the property of Afzal Hossain. Defendants are the sons and daughters of above Afzal Hossain by his first wife.
3In above suit plaintiffs filed a petition on 26.04.2026 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the plaint to incorporate additional properties of above Afzal Hossain and produced 11 separate registered kabla deeds showing purchase of above properties by Afzal Hossain. The copy of above petition was received by the learned Advocate for defendant No.27 but no copy was served upon defendant No.6 or defendant No.21 the learned Joint District Judge allowed above petition on the same date. Above defendants could not file a written objection against above petition for amendment of plaint nor got an opportunity of being heard.
4Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above order dated 26.04.2026 defendant No.21 as petitioner moved to this Court and obtained this Rule.
5Mr. Uzzal Bhowmick, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that defendant No.21 entered appearance in above suit and was contesting the claims of the plaintiff filing a written statement. But the learned Joint District Judge without serving a copy of above petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or hearing the appointed Advocate of above defendants most illegally allowed
above petition which is not tenable in law. Learned Advocate further submits that the ends of justice will be met if the impugned judgment and order is set aside and above petition is remanded to the trial Court for re-hearing after giving defendant No.21 an opportunity to file a written objection and hearing.
6Mr. Farid Hossain, learned Advocate for the opposite party No.6 supports above Rule and submits that no copy of above petition for amendment of the plaint was served upon opposite party No.6 who was defendant No.1 nor he was given an opportunity of being heard.
7Mr. Chanchal Kumar Biswas, learned Advocate for opposite party Nos.1-5 submits that on 26.04.2026 defendant No.1 or defendant No.21 were not present in Court. Defendant No.27 was present and the copy of above petition for amendment of the plaint was duly served upon the appointed Advocate of defendant No.27. Advocate of defendant No.27 who did not raise any objection nor he wanted to file written objection against above petition. On consideration of above materials on record the learned Joint District Judge rightly allowed above petition for amendment of the plaint which calls for no interference.
8We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined all materials on record.
9Above suit is for partition of the properties of now deceased Afzal Hossain and plaintiffs are second wife and sons and daughters of Afzal Hossain by second wife and defendants are sons and daughters of above Afzal Hossain by his now deceased first wife. By above petition
for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the plaintiff sought to incorporate some new lands which were allegedly purchased by Afzal Hossain by 13 separate registered kabla deeds.
10It turns out from impugned order dated 26.04.2006 that on above date only defendant No.27 was present and defendant Nos.1 and 21 were not present. The copy of above petition for amendment was duly served upon defendant No.27 who did not raise any objection nor he wanted to file a written objection.
11A suit for partition must fail if each and every piece of ejmaly property is not brought into the hotchpotch and all co-sharers are not impleaded as defendants. The plaintiffs have incorporated some new land claiming that those were acquired by Afzal Hossain by purchase by registered kabla deeds. The learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuously submits that above kabla deeds are forged and ineffective deeds. The legality and propriety of above kabla deeds will be determined by the trial Court on consideration of evidence to be adduced by the parties at trial.
12The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is liberal about amendment of the pleading. The pleadings of a Civil Suit can be amended at any stage of the proceedings and the only exception to not allow amendment of the pleadings is that no such amendment would defeat the right already accrued in favour of the opposite party.
13We are unable to find any illegality in the findings of the learned Judge of the trial court that above amendment of the plaint does not change the nature or character of the suit. The defendants will be at liberty to submit additional written statement to encounter all claims and allegations incorporated by the plaintiffs in the plaint by above amendment.
14In above view of the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record we are unable to find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Joint District Judge nor we find any substance in this Civil Revisional application under Section 151(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Rule issued in this connection is liable to be discharged.
15In the result, the Rule is hereby discharged.
16The order of stay granted at the time of issuance of the Rule is hereby vacated.
17However, there will be no order as to costs. Tamanna Rahman Khalidi, J:
I agree.
18MD. MASUDUR RAHMAN 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→
