High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Joydhar Ali v Karamjan Bibi
Civil Revision 3343/2009 · Rule discharged with costs · Decided 2 September 2026
The plaintiff sued before the Assistant Judge, Dohar, for cancellation of a deed of gift and an ex parte decree, and for partition, alleging that the defendant, who had acted as her tadbirkar in an earlier partition suit in which both were plaintiffs, obtained her thumb impressions on blank papers and forged the gift deed. The defendant applied under Order VII rule 11 read with section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint as barred by res judicata. The trial court rejected the application and the Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Dhaka dismissed his revision. On revision under section 115(4), with no one appearing, the High Court Division held that since both parties were plaintiffs in the earlier partition suit, their dispute could not have been decided there, and the present suit raised a distinct issue of forgery. The Rule was discharged with costs, the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, and two related execution cases were to remain stayed meanwhile.
- Whether a suit for cancellation of an allegedly forged deed of gift and for partition was barred by res judicata because of an earlier partition suit in which the plaintiff and the defendant were co-plaintiffs.
- Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits adjudication of the same issue between the same parties more than once, based on the public policy that there should be finality in litigation.
- Where the plaintiff and the defendant were both plaintiffs in an earlier partition suit, the dispute between them cannot be said to have been decided in that suit.
- A suit alleging that the defendant forged a deed of gift raises an issue different from that in the earlier partition suit and is not barred by res judicata.
- The trial court was directed to dispose of Title Suit No. 81 of 2003 expeditiously, and Execution Case No. 02 of 2002 and Execution Case No. 03 of 2003 were to remain stayed until its disposal.
Furthermore, the present plaintiff raised a question of forgery against the defendant Joydhar Ali hence the defendant’s contention that the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata has no substance at all as the issues are different.
