High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Bashir Howlader and others v Abdul Khaleque Mridha and others
Civil Revision 2051/2015 · Decided 21 July 2026
In a partition suit pending before the Joint District Judge, Patuakhali, the defendants, after their witness D.W.1 had given evidence, applied for local inspection to report on the present condition and boundaries of two parcels of land. The trial court rejected the application in 2014 and the Additional District Judge, Patuakhali rejected the defendants' civil revision, finding that whether the defendants possessed the land with houses was a matter to be decided on evidence. The defendants obtained leave under section 115(4). The High Court Division explained that inspection under Order XVIII Rule 18 and local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 are discretionary aids to understanding evidence, not a means of collecting evidence or filling a lacuna. Lateness is not an absolute bar, but a late applicant must show why ordinary evidence cannot suffice. The trial court's brief order caused no failure of justice since the revisional court gave reasons. The Rule was discharged, leaving the trial court free to order inspection later if genuinely necessary.
- Q1
Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the defendants' application, made after their witness had testified in a partition suit, for local inspection of the suit land.
- Q2
Whether a brief, non-speaking rejection order by the trial court required interference where the revisional court had later examined the matter with reasons.
- Order XVIII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives a party no absolute right to inspection; the power is vested in the court to be exercised judicially where inspection would help it understand the evidence or the subject matter.
- Local inspection is an aid to adjudication and not an instrument of evidence collection; it cannot become an independent source of proof of disputed facts or fill a lacuna in a party's case.
- There is no rule that an application under Order XVIII Rule 18 must be made before evidence begins, but the later it is filed the more the applicant must show why the matter cannot be proved by ordinary evidence.
- A brief or non-speaking order is ordinarily undesirable, but it does not warrant revisional interference where the revisional court below has independently examined the matter with reasons and no prejudice is shown.
- Rejection of the application did not prevent the trial court from later exercising its power under Order XVIII Rule 18 or Order XXVI Rule 9 if genuinely necessary to elucidate a matter in dispute.
The Court cannot direct an inspection merely because a party requests it. The applicant must demonstrate that inspection is relevant, necessary or expedient for the proper adjudication of a matter in dispute.
In the court’s own words.
Civil Revision 2051/2015, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 29 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
2HIGH COURT DIVISION
3(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Present:
4Mr Justice Abdur Rahman
5Civil Revision No. 2051 of 2015
6In the matter of:
7Md. Bashir Howlader and others
……Defendants-Petitioners
Petitioners
-Versus-
8Abdul Khaleque Mridha and others
…Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties
Opposite parties
9Mr A.K. Rashedul Huq, Counsel
……..For the Petitioners
10Mr Rafiqul Islam (Hiru) with
11Mr S.M. Jalal, Counsel
…For the opposite party 1.
12Date of Hearing: 13.07.2026 A.D. and 17.07.2026 A.D Date of Judgment: 21.07.2026 A.D. Tuesday;
[ 6 kÖveY, 1433 e½vã]
JUDGMENT
13Abdur Rahman, J:
14This revisional application, at the instance of the petitioners, has been filed under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. At the time of issuance of the Rule, the following order, granting leave, was passed:
15"Let the records of this case be called for and a Rule be
16issued for calling upon the opposite parties No. 1-9 to
17show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order
18dated 08.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional
19District Judge, Patuakhali in Civil Revision No.07 of 2014
20rejecting the Civil Revision and thereby affirmed the
21judgment and order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the
22learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Patuakhali in
23Title Suit No. 07 of 2002 whereby an application for
24Local Inspection filed by the petitioner was rejected
25should not be set aside and/or why such other or further
26order or orders should not be passed as to this Court
27may seem fit and proper."
28Concomitantly, this Court was also pleased to stay operation of further proceedings of Title Suit No.07 of 2007, now pending in the Court of Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Patuakhali, for a period of 3 months from date. Subsequently, the said order of stay was not extended for any further period. Chronicles of Facts in Brief:
29The material facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the opposite party No.1, as plaintiff, instituted a suit for partition being Title Suit No.65 of 1996 in the Court of the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Patuakhali, seeking a preliminary decree in respect of the land described in Schedule 'Ka' to the plaint.
30The defendant thereafter entered appearance before the learned trial Court and filed a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. Upon completion of the necessary procedural formalities, the learned trial Court fixed the suit for peremptory hearing. The plaintiff adduced
oral evidence and produced documentary evidence in support of his case.
31On the other hand, the defendant examined one witness, namely D.W.1. After completion of the evidence of D.W.1, the defendant filed an application seeking local inspection in respect of the following matters:
32“১। জলা পটয়াখালী সাব- র জ ার, পটয়াখালী অধীন পটয়াখালী মৗজার
33এস.এ. ২২৯৮ নং খিতয়ােনর হাল ৮৮৫ / ৮৮৬ / ৮৮৭ নং দােগর প &মাংেশ
34অবি(ত ৪৮ শতক স+ি,, যার চৗহ /—উ,ের সুলতান হা জর জিম,
35দি2েণ আবদুল হাই খ6কােরর জিম, পূেব 8 মহাসড়ক এবং প &েম মাইজ
36:ােমর খাল। উ; চৗহ /ভ; স+ি, বত8মােন কী অব(ায় আেছ, তার
37িব>ািরত িববরণসহ সেরজিমন ?িতেবদন দািখল করেত হেব।
38২। জলা সাব- র জ ার, মৗজা ও অধীন এস.এ. ২৩๐০ নং খিতয়ােনর ৮৭০
39নং দােগর পূবাংেশ
8 অবি(ত ১৮ শতক স+ি,, যার চৗহ /—উ,ের আCুল
40জDােরর জিম, পূেব 8 আেনায়ার হােসন মৃধার জিম, দি2েণ-প &েম
41কািলকাপুর সরকাির ?াথিমক িবদGালয় এবং প &েম দােগর বািক জিম। উ;
42স+ি, বত8মােন কী অব(ায় আেছ, তার িব>ািরত িববরণসহ সেরজিমন
43?িতেবদন দািখল করেত হেব।“
44Thereafter, the learned trial Court, upon hearing the said application, rejected the same vide order dated 05.02.2014. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred
Civil Revision No. 07 of 2014 before the learned District Judge, Patuakhali, which was subsequently transferred to the learned Additional District Judge, Patuakhali, for hearing and disposal. The learned Additional District Judge, upon hearing the parties, rejected the revisional application vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2015.
45Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioners:
46Mr A.K. Rashedul Huq, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Additional District Judge totally misdirected himself in law and in fact in approaching the question involved in the Civil Revision and thereby committed a material error of law resulting in failure of justice.
47It is submitted that the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the learned trial Court was a wholly non-speaking order, inasmuch as the learned trial Court rejected the application
for local inspection without assigning any cogent, intelligible or legally sustainable reason. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Revisional Court, instead of correcting the said defect, mechanically affirmed the order and thereby perpetuated the illegality committed by the trial Court.
48Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Revisional Court was under a duty to examine whether the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court was judicially exercised, whether relevant considerations were taken into account, whether irrelevant considerations were relied upon, and whether the refusal to permit inspection had resulted in failure of justice.
49It is further submitted that inspection of property by the Court is contemplated under Order XVIII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas local investigation by a commissioner is contemplated under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code and inspection of property or subject matter in dispute is also dealt with under Order XXXIX Rule 7. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners had specifically sought local inspection and not local investigation, and therefore the
learned Courts below fell into error by treating the application as though it were solely an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
50Learned Counsel further submitted that Order XVIII Rule 18 empowers the Court, at any stage of a suit, to inspect any property or thing concerning which a question may arise and, therefore, the mere fact that the suit had progressed to the stage of evidence could not, by itself, constitute a legal bar to such inspection.
51It is also submitted that the learned Additional District Judge wrongly observed that the matters mentioned in the application could be established by oral evidence and, therefore, local inspection was unnecessary. According to the learned Counsel, there may be circumstances in which physical features, location, boundaries, existing structures and the present condition of property cannot be adequately appreciated merely from oral testimony and documentary evidence.
52Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from an error of law resulting in failure of justice and, accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. Submissions on Behalf of the Opposite Party 1:
53Conversely, Mr. Rafiqul Islam (Hiro), assisted by Mr. S.M. Jalal, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1, submitted that the learned Courts below concurrently rejected the application upon consideration of the materials on record and, therefore, no interference is warranted in revisional jurisdiction.
54Learned Counsel submitted that the matters sought to be ascertained through local inspection relate essentially to facts which can be established by competent oral and documentary evidence. The defendants, having already adduced evidence and having had sufficient opportunity to produce their witnesses, cannot invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of filling up any deficiency or lacuna in their evidence.
55It is further submitted that the power of inspection under Order XVIII Rule 18 and the power of local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 are discretionary powers and are intended to aid the Court in adjudicating the real controversy between the parties. Such powers cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be employed as a device to enable a party to collect evidence which it was otherwise required to produce before the Court.
56Learned Counsel further submitted that local inspection cannot be permitted where the proposed inspection would have the effect of introducing new evidence regarding disputed facts or substituting the evidence of witnesses by an observation of the Commissioner or the Court.
57Finally, learned counsel refers to the decision reported in 28 DLR (1976) 344, in the case of Gladstone Wyllie & Co. Ltd. Vs. A.B.M. Shayesta Khan and another, and submitted that the purpose of local inspection is to assist the Court in appreciating evidence already brought on record and not to provide a substitute for such evidence. He accordingly prays for discharge of the Rule.
58Consideration and Findings:
59I have heard the learned Counsels for the respective parties, perused the revisional application, the impugned judgment and order, the order passed by the learned trial Court, the pleadings and other materials available on record.
60The principal question which falls for determination in the instant Rule is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned subordinate Courts committed any error of law resulting in failure of justice in rejecting the petitioners' application for local inspection.
61At the outset, it is necessary to appreciate the precise nature and scope of the power relating to inspection and local investigation.
62Order XVIII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court, at any stage of a suit, to inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise. The provision, however, does not confer upon a party an absolute or indefeasible right to demand inspection. The power is vested in the Court to be exercised judicially
whenever, in the opinion of the Court, such inspection would assist it in understanding or appreciating the evidence or the subject matter of the dispute.
63On the other hand, Order XXVI Rule 9 relates to local investigation by a commissioner where the Court considers such investigation requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or for ascertaining the market value of property, the number of mesne profits or damages, or annual net profits.
64Order XXXIX Rule 7 also confers power upon the Court, in appropriate circumstances, to make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of property which is the subject matter of such suit or as to which any question may arise therein.
65These provisions, though operating in somewhat different fields, share a common procedural objective: namely, to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the real controversy between the parties. They are not intended to provide a litigant with an alternative method of proving facts
which are otherwise required to be established by admissible evidence. Nature of Local Inspection:
66The expression "local inspection" cannot be understood as synonymous with the collection of evidence.
67The Court may inspect the property for the limited purpose of obtaining a better understanding of the evidence already adduced before it. Physical features, relative locations, boundaries, existing structures, access, topographical circumstances and other objective features may, in an appropriate case, assist the Court in comprehending the evidence of witnesses and appreciating documentary materials.
68But the inspection itself cannot become an independent source of proof of disputed facts which are required to be established by the parties.
69This distinction is fundamental.
70A Court may look at the physical features of a property in order to understand what a witness has stated. It cannot, however, use its own inspection as a substitute for the testimony of that witness. Similarly, a commissioner appointed for local investigation cannot be permitted to decide disputed questions of title, possession, inheritance or other substantive rights merely on the basis of what he observes at the locality.
71The evidentiary function remains with the Court on the basis of the materials legally brought on record. Local Investigation is not a Substitute for Evidence:
72The learned Counsel for the opposite party has rightly relied upon the decision reported in 28 DLR (1976) 344, wherein the purpose and limitations of local inspection under Order XVIII Rule 18 were considered.
73In that decision, it was observed, in substance, that the object of inspection is to assist the Court in understanding the evidence on record and not to bring fresh evidence on record. It was also recognized that the observations made upon
inspection cannot be substituted for the evidence of witnesses or made the sole foundation of the judgment.
74The principle is salutary and deserves reiteration.
75Local inspection is an aid to adjudication; it is not an instrument of evidence collection.
76The Court must therefore be cautious to ensure that an application for inspection is not converted into a mechanism by which a party, having failed to establish a disputed fact through admissible evidence, seeks to obtain an evidentiary advantage through a later inspection. Whether the Application was Necessary in the Present Case:
77In the present case, the matters mentioned in the application relate principally to the existing physical condition and situation of certain portions of land, their boundaries and surrounding features.
78The learned Revisional Court, after considering the application, recorded the following finding:
79“উপযু;
808 পযােলাচনায়
8 দখা যায় য, ছয়ন মামলাHট ইং ২৩/০৫/১৯৯৬
81তািরেখ বIেনর ?াথিমক িড Kর ?াথনায়
8 দােয়র হওয়ার পর ইং
82০৮/০৪/২০১৩ তািরখ পযL
8 সবেশষ
8 িড .ড িNউ.-১-এর সা2G:হণ অব(ায়
83রিহয়ােছ। মামলাHট ?কৃতপে2 লাকাল ইনেOকশন আবশGক হইেল
84িববাদীপ2 মামলাHট discovery and inspection পযােয়
8 দািখল কিরেত
85পািরেতন। িকP িববাদীপ2 উ; সHঠক সমেয় এবং মামলার সHঠক পযােয়
86উ; লাকাল ইনেOকশেনর আেবদন দািখল কেরন নাই। তাছাড়া, নািলশী
87ভূ িমেত িববাদীপে2র পূবপু
8 Rেষর আমল হইেত ঘর-দরজা িনমাণ
8 কিরয়া
88দখেল আেছন িক না, তাহা সা2G Tারা আদালত কতৃক
8 িনধারণ
8 কিরবার িবষয়।
89ইহা অGাড েভােকট কিমশনােরর মাধGেম িনধারেণর
8 কােনা অবকাশ নাই।
90ফেল িনV আদালেত অGাড েভােকট কিমশনােরর মাধGেম লাকাল
91ইনেOকশেনর আেবদন নামঞ্জুর কিরয়া কােনা আইনগত ভল করা হয়
92নাই এবং ইহার Tারা িবচার িনYি, বা িবচােরর বGথতার
8 কােনা কারণ সৃHZ হয়
93নাই।”
94The above observation demonstrates that the Revisional Court did not reject the application merely on the ground that the power of inspection was unavailable to it in law. Rather, it examined the nature of the matters sought to be established and concluded that the relevant facts could be established through evidence.
95I find no fundamental legal infirmity in such approach, as the instant suit is a partition one.
96Stage of the Suit:
97The stage at which an application for local inspection is filed is certainly a relevant circumstance, though it cannot by itself constitute an absolute statutory bar.
98There is no proposition of law that an application under Order XVIII Rule 18 must necessarily be filed before evidence commences or that the Court becomes functus officio for the purpose of inspection once evidence has begun.
99At the same time, the later the application is filed, the greater the necessity for the applicant to demonstrate why the inspection has become necessary at that particular stage and why the matter could not reasonably have been established by ordinary evidence.
100In the instant case, the defendant had already adduced the evidence of D.W.1 and thereafter sought inspection regarding matters which, according to the learned Revisional Court, could be established by oral and documentary evidence.
101The application, therefore, required a particularly convincing explanation as to why such evidence could not sufficiently establish the matters relied upon by the defendants.
102No such compelling circumstance is apparent from the record. Effect of the Alleged Non-Speaking Order:
103I have also considered the submission that the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the learned trial Court was nonspeaking.
104It is true that a judicial order, particularly an order deciding an application which may affect the procedural rights of a party, ought ordinarily to disclose the reasons which led the Court to its conclusion. Reasoned orders are an indispensable component of judicial administration because reasons demonstrate that discretion has been exercised upon relevant considerations rather than arbitrarily.
105A non-speaking order is therefore ordinarily undesirable.
106However, the revisional Court is not required to set aside every order merely because the subordinate Court has expressed its conclusion in brief terms. The decisive question is whether the ultimate decision is legally sustainable and whether the alleged deficiency in reasoning has resulted in failure of justice.
107In the present case, although the order of the learned trial Court dated 05.02.2014 is undoubtedly brief and does not contain an elaborate discussion, the learned Revisional Court subsequently examined the matter in detail and recorded reasons for affirming the rejection of the application.
108Therefore, the deficiency in the original order, standing by itself, does not warrant interference under section 115(4) of the Code where the Revisional Court has independently examined the relevant legal and factual aspects and no substantive prejudice has been demonstrated. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction:
109It is equally necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
110A revision is not an appeal in disguise. The revisional jurisdiction is intended to correct jurisdictional errors, material irregularities or errors of law of the nature contemplated by section 115 of the Code resulting in failure of justice. The High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, does not ordinarily substitute its own discretionary assessment merely because another view is possible.
111Where the subordinate Courts have exercised a discretionary procedural power upon consideration of relevant circumstances, and their decisions do not suffer from jurisdictional error, perversity, misreading of material evidence or violation of a fundamental principle of law or procedure, interference is not justified merely because the High Court may have exercised the discretion differently had the matter been before it at the first instance.
112In the present case, I do not find that the learned trial Court acted without jurisdiction. Nor do I find that the learned Revisional Court acted beyond jurisdiction in affirming the order of rejection.
113The petitioners have also failed to demonstrate that refusal of local inspection has occasioned such prejudice as would amount to a failure of justice within the meaning of the revisional jurisdiction. Whether the Application was Intended to Fill up a Lacuna:
114There is another important aspect which cannot be overlooked.
115A party cannot invoke the discretionary power of local inspection as a means of repairing an evidentiary deficiency after the trial has substantially progressed.
116The Court must distinguish between a genuine requirement of inspection and an attempt to fill up a lacuna.
117Where the physical characteristics of the property are genuinely necessary for understanding the evidence, inspection may be justified. But where the applicant seeks, through inspection, to establish possession, title, historical occupation, identity of ownership, or other disputed matters
which are capable of proof through witnesses and documents, the Court must be slow to permit such procedure.
118The application in the present case, as understood from the materials on record, seeks ascertainment of the present condition and surrounding features of specified portions of land. Such matters may, in an appropriate case, justify inspection. But the broader controversy regarding possession and the asserted occupation of the land by the defendants or their predecessors is a matter to be established through evidence and cannot be delegated to an Advocate Commissioner or established solely through inspection.
119Thus, the learned Revisional Court was justified in observing that such disputed matters could be determined on the basis of evidence.
120No Absolute Bar Against Future Assistance by Inspection
121However, one aspect requires clarification.
122The rejection of the present application does not mean that the learned trial Court is permanently precluded from
exercising its statutory power under Order XVIII Rule 18 or, where legally applicable, from considering an application under Order XXVI Rule 9.
123If, during the course of trial, the learned trial Court finds that a particular physical feature or aspect of the property cannot adequately be appreciated from the evidence already brought on record and that inspection or local investigation is genuinely requisite for elucidating a matter in dispute, the Court may exercise its statutory discretion in accordance with law.
124Such power must, however, be exercised judicially, for a legitimate adjudicatory purpose and not for the purpose of collecting fresh evidence for either party.
125This distinction is important because procedural law is intended to facilitate the discovery of truth and the just disposal of litigation, but it cannot be permitted to become an instrument for altering the evidentiary burden of the parties. Application of the Principles to the Present Case:
126Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it appears that the defendant-petitioner had already participated in the trial and had adduced evidence through D.W.1. The application for local inspection was thereafter filed.
127The matters sought to be established through the proposed inspection were not shown to be matters incapable of proof through competent oral or documentary evidence. Nor has the petitioner been able to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance showing that refusal of inspection would render the adjudication of the suit impossible or substantially defective.
128The learned Additional District Judge being a Revisional Court considered the stage of the proceeding, the nature of the matters sought to be inspected, and the availability of ordinary modes of proof. It thereafter concluded that no legal error had been committed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application.
129I find the approach of the learned Revisional Court to be legally permissible.
130The Court cannot direct an inspection merely because a party requests it. The applicant must demonstrate that inspection is relevant, necessary or expedient for the proper adjudication of a matter in dispute. The discretionary jurisdiction must be exercised on the basis of necessity and judicial utility, not on the basis of mere convenience or the desire of a litigant to obtain additional factual material.
131It is equally important that a litigant should not be allowed to transform a procedural application into an instrument for introducing evidence which otherwise ought to have been produced during the ordinary course of trial. Failure of Justice:
132The jurisdiction under section 115(4) is ultimately concerned with whether the impugned decision has occasioned a failure of justice.
133In the instant case, the petitioner has not been deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence. The defendants had
the opportunity to produce witnesses, documents and other admissible materials in support of their case. The mere refusal of an application for local inspection, in the circumstances of the present case, does not establish that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard or of proving his case.
134There is, therefore, no demonstrated failure of justice warranting interference by this Court.
135The learned Revisional Court also directed the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Such direction is consistent with the overarching principle that litigation should not be unnecessarily prolonged by interlocutory applications which do not materially assist in determining the real controversy. Conclusion:
136Upon an overall consideration of the facts, circumstances, materials on record, submissions advanced by the learned Counsels and the legal principles governing local inspection and local investigation, I am of the considered view
that the petitioners have failed to establish that the impugned judgment and order suffers from any jurisdictional error, material irregularity, misreading of evidence, nonconsideration of a material fact or error of law resulting in failure of justice.
137The learned trial Court may have passed the order dated 05.02.2014 in brief terms, but the learned Revisional Court subsequently considered the matter at length and assigned sufficient reasons for affirming the decision. The alleged deficiency in the reasoning of the trial Court, therefore, has not caused such prejudice as would justify interference in the present revisional jurisdiction.
138The power of inspection under Order XVIII Rule 18 is undoubtedly available to the Court, but its availability does not mean that a litigant has an absolute right to obtain inspection. The power is discretionary and must be exercised to enable the Court to understand and appreciate the evidence and the physical features relevant to the dispute. It cannot be invoked to collect fresh evidence, prove matters
that are otherwise capable of proof by ordinary evidence, or fill lacunae in a party's case.
139Similarly, local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 is not a matter of course. The Court must be satisfied that such investigation is requisite or proper for elucidating a matter in dispute. The necessity of such investigation must emerge from the nature of the controversy and the materials already before the Court.
140In the present case, the petitioner has not established such necessity. The matters referred to in the application can substantially be established through oral and documentary evidence, and the defendants have not yet been deprived of their opportunity to produce such evidence. Consequently, the refusal of local inspection cannot be characterized as an illegality resulting in failure of justice.
141It is, therefore, held that the discretionary power relating to local inspection or local investigation cannot be claimed as a matter of right; nor can such power be employed as a substitute for evidence or as a device for
filling up an evidentiary lacuna. The determinative consideration is whether inspection is genuinely necessary to assist the Court in appreciating the evidence and elucidating the matter in dispute. Accordingly, I find no merit in the Rule. Order:
142The Rule is, accordingly, discharged, without any order as to costs.
143However, it is made clear that the learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law and shall consider the evidence of the parties objectively. If, at any subsequent stage, the learned trial Court finds, upon proper judicial consideration, that inspection of the property under Order XVIII Rule 18 or local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 is genuinely necessary for elucidating any matter in dispute and that such exercise would assist the Court in properly adjudicating the controversy, it shall remain open to the learned trial Court to exercise its statutory discretion in accordance with law. Nothing contained in this judgment shall
be construed as an absolute prohibition against such exercise of jurisdiction in an appropriate case.
144The learned trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably without granting unnecessary adjournments, subject, however, to the rights of the parties to conduct their respective cases in accordance with law.
145Let the Subordinate Courts Record (SCR), together with a copy of this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Court.
(Abdur Rahman, J.)
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→
