High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Amena Khatun Popy and another v Sheikh Nasim Uddin and others
Civil Revision 3196/2024 · Decided 13 July 2026
In a title suit, the trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from withdrawing land acquisition compensation of Tk. 57,68,629.53 and the acquisition authorities from releasing it. On the defendants' miscellaneous appeal, the Senior District Judge, Khulna stayed the injunction pending the appeal, and the defendants then withdrew the money. Months later, on the plaintiff's application, the appellate court found that the stay had been sought only to stop the plaintiff withdrawing, treated the withdrawal as contemptuous, ordered redeposit and called on the defendants to show cause why criminal proceedings should not be started. The High Court Division found that the stay application contained no such representation, so the order rested on a factual premise absent from the record. Powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 21 of the General Clauses Act must be exercised on a correct view of the facts. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal directed to be decided expeditiously.
- Q1
Whether an appellate court could direct appellants to redeposit land acquisition compensation they withdrew while a temporary injunction was stayed, and to show cause why criminal proceedings should not be started, on the footing that the stay had been sought only to stop the plaintiff withdrawing.
- Judicial orders must rest on the pleadings and materials actually before the court, and a finding based on facts that do not appear in the record cannot be sustained.
- Inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the power under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to vary or recall an order are discretionary and must be exercised on a correct appreciation of the facts.
- The direction to redeposit and to show cause, made on the footing that the withdrawal was contemptuous, could not stand because it rested on a misreading of the stay application, and the petitioners had withdrawn the money while the stay subsisted.
- Prima facie, disputes on entitlement to or disbursement of acquisition compensation are governed by the self-contained scheme of sections 8(2), 11 and 47 of the 2017 acquisition statute, a matter for the appellate court to consider.
- 35 DLR (AD) 42, on a mandatory injunction to undo a wall built during litigation, was distinguishable.
However, judicial orders must invariably rest upon the pleadings, materials and submissions actually placed before the Court. A finding based on facts that do not appear in the record cannot be sustained in law.
In the court’s own words.
Civil Revision 3196/2024, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 14 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
2HIGH COURT DIVISION (CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Present:
3MR. JUSTICE ABDUR RAHMAN Civil Revision No. 3196 of 2024
4Amena Khatun Popy and another
…Defendants-Appellants
Petitioners
-Versus-
5Sheikh Nasim Uddin and others
…Plaintiff-Respondent
Opposite Parties
6Mr Partha Sarathi Mondal, Advocate
….. For the petitioners
7Mr Md. Alamgir Mostafizur Rahman, with Mr Khandaker Ashraful Alam and Mr Manjurul Hoque, Advocates
….. For the opposite parties
8Date of Hearing: 28.06.2026, 29.06.2026 and
908.07.2026 A.D.
10Date of Judgment: 13.07.2026 A.D, Monday, at
113:00 P.M. [ 29 Avlvp 1433 e½vã ]
JUDGMENT
12Abdur Rahman, J:
13This Rule, at the instance of the defendant-petitioners, was issued under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, calling upon the opposite party No.1 to show cause as to why the judgment and order No.13 dated 19.05.2024 passed by the learned Senior District Judge, Khulna, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.37 of 2023 should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
14At the time of issuance of the Rule, operation of the impugned judgment and order was stayed for six months, which order has subsequently been extended till disposal of the Rule.
15The facts relevant to the Rule's disposal may be briefly stated.
16The plaintiff-opposite party No.1 instituted Title Suit No.50 of 2022 and initially filed an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
contesting defendants entered an appearance and filed written statements denying the material allegations made in the plaint. Subsequently, on 18.05.2023, the plaintiff filed another application under Section 151 of the Code, praying for a temporary injunction.
17The present petitioners contested the said application by filing a written objection. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Khulna, by Order No.26 dated 01.06.2023, allowed the application and restrained defendant Nos.1-3 from withdrawing Tk.57,68,629.53 covered by Award No.30 in L.A. Case (General) No.03/2020-21 and simultaneously restrained defendant Nos.4-7 from releasing the said amount to defendant Nos.1-3 until disposal of the suit.
18Being aggrieved thereby, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 37 of 2023 before the learned District Judge, Khulna.
19During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed an application praying for a stay of the operation of the order of temporary injunction. By Order No. 6 dated 28.08.2023,
the learned Senior District Judge stayed the operation of the order dated 01.06.2023 until the disposal of the appeal.
20Thereafter, on 11.03.2024, the plaintiff filed an application under section 151 of the Code seeking recall of the stay order, alleging, inter alia, that the appellants had taken advantage of the stay order and withdrawn the compensation money, thereby frustrating the very subject matter of the suit.
21Upon hearing the said application, the learned Senior District Judge, by the impugned Order No.13 dated 19.05.2024, directed the appellants to deposit the withdrawn compensation money by pay order and further directed them to show cause why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against them.
22Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners have invoked this Court's revisional jurisdiction.
23Mr Partha Sarathi Mondal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the learned appellate Court fundamentally misconstrued the contents of the stay application and proceeded on an assumption which
has no factual foundation. According to him, the appellate Court erroneously recorded that the appellants had represented that the stay was sought only to prevent the plaintiff from withdrawing the compensation money, although no such statement appears anywhere in the application dated 31.07.2023.
24He further submits that once the operation of the injunction order had been stayed by a competent Court, there remained no legal embargo preventing the petitioners from receiving compensation in accordance with the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the subsequent finding that withdrawal of the compensation amounted to contemptuous conduct is wholly unsustainable.
25Referring to Annexure-J to the supplementary affidavit, the learned Counsel further submits that the compensation was released after completion of the statutory acquisition proceedings and after disposal of the objections raised before the Acquisition Officer. The plaintiff participated in those proceedings but did not challenge the Acquisition Authority's decision before the forum prescribed by law.
26It is lastly submitted that the impugned order proceeds entirely upon a misconception of facts and law and consequently suffers from misreading of the record, nonconsideration of material facts and non-application of judicial mind.
27Conversely, Mr Md. Alamgir Mostafizur Rahman, the learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No.1, submits that the suit is one for partition amongst co-sharers and that the temporary injunction was rightly granted to preserve the subject matter of the litigation.
28He contends that the petitioners obtained the order of stay by misleading the appellate Court and thereafter withdrew the compensation money in abuse of the judicial process. Therefore, the learned appellate Court rightly exercised its inherent jurisdiction under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also its power under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to recall or modify its earlier order and to restore the position existing before the abuse of the Court's process.
29He further submits that Courts are competent, in appropriate cases, to issue mandatory interlocutory directions restoring the status quo ante and places reliance upon the decision reported in 35 DLR (AD) 42.
30I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel, examined the revisional application and perused the materials available on record.
31The principal question requiring determination is whether the learned appellate Court was justified in directing the appellants to redeposit the compensation money and simultaneously calling upon them to explain why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against them.
32A careful examination of Order No. 6 dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure-H1) demonstrates that the learned appellate Court merely stayed the operation of the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court, pending disposal of the miscellaneous appeal.
33Thereafter, by dint of the aforesaid order, the defendants-petitioners withdrew the compensation amount from the acquisition case, as evidenced by Annexure-J to the
petitioners' supplementary affidavit. Hereinafter, the plaintiffrespondent filed an application on 11.03.2024, for vacating the earlier stay order dated 28.08.2023 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the learned Appellate Court was pleased to pass the impugned order dated 19.05.2024, observing in the following way:
34“নিথ পযােলাচনায় িতভাত হয় য, তিকত আেদশ ল ন কের
35র নেড -বাদী যন কান কায ম করেত না পাের অথাৎ #িতপূরেণর
36অথ উে'ালন করেত না পাের ত(েম দওয়ানী ৫০/২০২২নং মক/মার ইং
37০১/৬/২০২৩ তািরেখর আেদেশর কাযকািরতা 5িগেতর াথনায়
38আপীলকারী-িববাদীপ# কতৃক 8য়ং ইং ৩১/৭/২০২৩ তািরেখ দরখা:
39আনয়ন কেরন- যা অ; আদালত ইং ২৮/৮/২০২৩ তািরেখর ৬নং আেদেশ
40মঞ্জুর কেরন। িকB পরবতCেত দখা যায় য, িববাদী- আপীলকারীগণ
418য়ং তিকত আেদশেক ল ন কের #িতপূরেণর টাকা তE েল িনেয়েছন- যা
42চরমভােব আদালেতর িত বৃGাHু িল দশেনর নামাIর। আপীলকারীর
43উJKপ আচরণ আদালত অবমাননার সািমল। বিণত #াপেট আগামী
44ইং ০৪/৮/২০২৪ তািরখ িববাদী-আপীলকারীগণেক প অডার যােগ
45উে'ািলত #িতপূরেণর টাকা জমা দান করেত িনেদশ দান করা হল
46এবং কন আপীলকারীপে#র িবOেG ফৗজদারী কায ম গৃহীত হেব না
47ত(েম উJ ধায তািরেখর মেধS কারণ দশােনার িনেদশ দওয়া গল।“
48From the aforesaid order, it is evident that while disposing of the application dated 11.03.2024, the learned appellate Court observed that the stay had been granted
upon the representation that the plaintiff should not be allowed to withdraw the compensation money.
49Nevertheless, on meticulous examination of the stay application dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure-G), this Court finds that no such assertion is contained therein. The reasoning adopted in the impugned order is therefore founded on a factual premise that is wholly absent from the record.
50However, judicial orders must invariably rest upon the pleadings, materials and submissions actually placed before the Court. A finding based on facts that do not appear in the record cannot be sustained in law.
51The chronology of events further demonstrates that the appeal was filed on 22.06.2023, the stay application on 31.07.2023, and the stay order passed on 28.08.2023. The plaintiff sought recall of that order only on 11.03.2024, long after the petitioners had acted upon the subsisting stay order.
52It is equally significant that the plaintiff admittedly participated in the acquisition proceedings by raising
objections before the competent authority. The materials available on record further indicate that the compensation was disbursed pursuant to the acquisition proceedings after completion of the statutory process.
53It is no doubt true that every Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and may also exercise powers recognized under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to rescind, vary or recall its own order where circumstances so warrant. Such powers, however, are discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, with a correct appreciation of the facts and materials on record. An order passed on an erroneous factual assumption cannot be sustained merely because the Court possessed jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order.
54To properly resolve the controversy raised in this Rule, it is indispensable to examine the statutory framework set out in sections 8(2), 11, and 47 of the াবর স ি অ িধ হণ ও কু মদখল আ ইন, ২০১৭. These provisions are not isolated in operation; rather, they constitute an integrated legislative scheme regulating the preparation of awards, adjudication of
competing claims to compensation and the forum competent to resolve such disputes. Section 11 creates a self-contained statutory mechanism authorising the Deputy Commissioner to inquire into and determine rival claims or objections concerning entitlement to compensation payable in respect of acquired property. Section 8(2) reinforces that mechanism by conferring finality upon the award prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, subject to the provisions and remedies expressly contemplated by the Act itself. Complementing these provisions, section 47 expressly circumscribes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts by prohibiting their interference in matters for which the Act has prescribed a complete, adequate and efficacious statutory remedy. The conjoint reading of these provisions unmistakably manifests the legislative intention that disputes relating to the entitlement, apportionment or disbursement of compensation should ordinarily be adjudicated by the statutory authorities constituted under the Act, thereby preserving the integrity of the special statutory mechanism and avoiding parallel adjudication before Civil Courts except where the statute itself permits such intervention.
55However, without expressing any concluded opinion regarding the ultimate maintainability or merits of the pending partition suit, it prima facie appears that the dispute relating to the disbursement of compensation is governed by the special statutory framework under the াবর স ি অ িধ হণ ও কু মদখল আ ইন, ২০১৭. These aspects undoubtedly require careful consideration by the appellate Court while deciding the miscellaneous appeal on its own merits.
56The reliance placed upon 35 DLR (AD) 42 is equally misplaced. In that case, the mandatory interlocutory injunction was granted to restore possession after the defendants had altered the physical condition of the disputed passage by constructing a wall during the pendency of the litigation. The controversy therein arose entirely from acts committed in violation of the rights asserted in the suit itself.
57The factual foundation of the present case is altogether different. Here, the compensation was released pursuant to statutory acquisition proceedings, and the controversy concerns the legal consequences of withdrawing that compensation after the temporary injunction had already
been stayed by a competent appellate Court. The ratio of the cited decision is, therefore, clearly distinguishable and does not govern the facts of the present case.
58Upon an overall consideration of the record, this Court is satisfied that the learned appellate Court misread the stay application and failed to consider material facts appearing in the record. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from a misreading of the evidence, non-consideration of material particulars, and non-application of judicial mind, resulting in an error in the decision, occasioning a failure of justice.
59Accordingly, the Rule succeeds.
60The Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs.
61The Judgment and Order 13 dated 19.05.2024 passed by the learned Senior District Judge, Khulna, in Miscellaneous Appeal 37 of 2023, is hereby set aside.
62In view of the foregoing discussion and the ultimate disposal of the Rule, the order of stay earlier granted by this Court stands recalled and vacated.
63The learned Senior District Judge, Khulna, is directed to dispose of Miscellaneous Appeal 37 of 2023 expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and in light of the observations made herein, without being influenced by any observation touching the merits of the pending title suit.
64Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith.
(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→
