High Court Division
Masudur Rahman and others v Anowar Hossain and others
Civil Revision 3118/2022 · Decided 23 June 2026
The plaintiffs sued in 2012 for specific performance of a contract dated 05.04.1980 and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed on maintainability and upheld up to the High Court Division, but on 02.03.2017 the Appellate Division set those decisions aside, stating that an earlier eviction decree did not bar the tenant's suit, and directed the trial Court to proceed. The defendants then applied under Order VII rule 11(a) and (d), and the Senior Assistant Judge, Dhaka, rejected the plaint as disclosing no cause of action and barred by law. The District Judge, Dhaka, reversed that order and the defendants obtained a Rule in revision. The High Court Division held that, maintainability having been decided by the Appellate Division, the trial Court was functus officio to reject the plaint again on that ground. The defendants had suppressed the Appellate Division's order, which binds all courts under Article 111. The Rule was discharged with costs of Tk. 25,000 and the suit was directed to be disposed of within six months.
- Q1
Whether the trial Court could reject the plaint as barred by law after the Appellate Division had directed it to proceed with the suit.
- Q2
Whether the defendants were liable to costs for suppressing the Appellate Division's order in their application for rejection of the plaint.
- After the Appellate Division has decided the question of maintainability and directed the trial Court to proceed, the trial Court is functus officio to reject the plaint again as not maintainable or barred by law.
- Under Article 111 of the Constitution, law declared by the Appellate Division is binding on all courts.
- The defendants suppressed the Appellate Division's order in their application under Order VII rule 11 and fraudulently obtained the rejection order, making them liable to costs.
- The appellate Court rightly reversed the rejection of the plaint, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months.
Under Article 111 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Appellate Division shall be binding on all Courts, including the High Court Division.
In the court’s own words.
Civil Revision 3118/2022, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 4 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1Present: Mr. Justice Md. Shohrowardi Civil Revision No. 3118 of 2022 Masudur Rahman and others….Petitioners -Versus- Md. Anowar Hossain and others….Opposite parties Mr. Md. Haroon Ar Rashid, Advocate
….For the petitioners
2Mr. Md. Ahia, Advocate
….For the opposite party Nos. 1 to 13
Heard on 10.06.2026 and 16.06.2026
Judgment delivered on 23.06.2026
3On an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1 to 13 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 passed by the District Judge, Dhaka in Tile Appeal No. 78 of 2020 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Court No. 3, Dhaka in Title Suit No. 400 of 2012 rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
4Relevant fact for disposal of the Rule is that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 13 filed Title Suit No. 400 of 2012 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Court No. 3, Dhaka, praying for a decree of specific performance of contract dated 05.04.1980 and permanent injunction, impleading the petitioners as defendants. After filing the suit, the Senior Assistant Judge, Court No. 3, Dhaka, by order No. 2 dated 15.10.2012 dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability against which the plaintiff-opposite party Nos. 1 to 13 preferred Civil Revision No. 244 of 2012 in the Court of the District Judge, Dhaka and the appellate Court after hearing the parties by judgment and decree dated 04.06.2013 dismissed the appeal against which, the plaintiffs again filed Civil Revision No. 2675 of 2013 before the High Court Division who by judgment and order dated 16.03.2016 discharged the Rule affirming the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court. The plaintiffs again moved to the Hon’ble Appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016, and the Appellate Division, by judgment and order dated 02.03.2017, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division and directed the trial Court to proceed with the Title Suit No. 400 of 2012 in accordance with law.
5After disposal of the said Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal by the Hon’ble Appellate Division, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint and after hearing the parties the Senior Assistant Judge, Court No. 3, Dhaka by
judgment and decree dated 21.11.2019 rejected the plaint holding that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is barred by law against which, the plaintiff-petitioners filed Title Appeal No. 78 of 2020 in the Court of District Judge, Dhaka who by impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Thereafter the defendant-petitioners obtained the Rule.
6Learned Advocate Mr. Md. Haroon Ar Rashid, appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioners, submits that the S.C.C Suit No. 21 of 2004 for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit shop was decreed and in execution of the decree, the plaintiffs were evicted from the suit shops and thereafter, the present suit on the same cause of action is not maintainable in law. Learned Advocate further submits that the judgment and order passed by the appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016 is not binding upon the trial Court and the trial Court is legally empowered to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint and the trial Court legally allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rejecting the plaint. He prayed for making the Rule absolute.
7Learned Advocate Mr. Md. Ahia appearing on behalf of the plaintiffopposite party Nos. 1 to 13 submits that earlier in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016, the Appellate Division directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial and the Assistant Judge ignoring the said judgment and order passed by the Apex Court illegally rejected the plaint and the appellate Court below legally passed the impugned judgment and decree holding that the trial Court did not consider at all the judgment and order dated 02.03.2017 passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016. He prayed for discharging the Rule.
8I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate Mr. Md. Haroon Ar Rashid, who appeared on behalf of the defendant-petitioners, and the learned Advocate Mr. Md. Ahia, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party Nos. 1 to 13, perused the revisional application, impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, and the records.
9On perusal of the records, it reveals that the trial Court, by order No. 2 dated 15.10.2012, suo-motu dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability, against which, the plaintiff moved up to the Hon’ble Appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016 and the Apex Court by order dated 02.03.2017 directed the trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. After disposal of the issue regarding maintainability of the suit by our Apex
Court, the trial Court is functus officio to reject the plaint again on the ground of maintainability and barred by law.
10At this stage, it is relevant here to refer to the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016 which is quoted below;
“We add that because of the filing of a suit for eviction and decree
passed pursuant thereto, a suit at the instance of the tenant for
specific performance will not be barred by any provisions of law.
The High Court Division maintained the judgment of the lower
appellate court mainly on the ground that in the suit the petitioner
has prayed for injunction and this prayer would disentitle the
respondent in obtaining possession pursuant to the decree passed
by the S.C.C court. This is also not a legal ground in affirming the
judgment of the lower appellate court. If the suit is otherwise found
maintainable, it ought to have directed the trial court to proceed
with the trial of the suit because of the fact that the trial court has
dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability.”
11On perusal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendants-petitioners for rejection of plaint further reveals that nothing has been stated in the application for rejection of plaint regarding the judgment and order dated 02.03.2017 passed by our Apex Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016. I am of the view that the defendants-petitioners, suppressing the said judgment and order passed by the Appellate Division, filed the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the trial Court for rejection of plaint and fraudulently obtained the order from the trial Court. The appellate Court below, considering the said judgment and order passed by our Apex Court, legally passed the impugned judgment and order.
12On perusal of the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Court No. 3, Dhaka, it transpires that the trial Court did not consider the judgment and order dated 02.03.2017 passed by our Apex Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016.
13Under Article 111 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Appellate Division shall be binding on all Courts, including the High Court Division. The defendant-petitioners intentionally and deliberately suppressed the judgment and order dated 02.03.2017 passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2931 of 2016 by the Appellate Division and fraudulently obtained the order from the trial Court. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay costs.
14As a result, the Rule is discharged with costs of Tk. 25,000(twenty five thousand).
15The defendants-petitioners are directed to deposit the costs of Tk. 25,000 (twenty-five thousand) in the trial Court within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgment and order.
16The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
17Send down the lower Court’s records at once.
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→
