Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction

Most. Ayesha Bibi and others v Md. Selim Shikder and others

Civil Revision 6412/2023 · Decided 6 August 2026

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

1judge on the bench

5pages

15paragraphs

2laws considered

Summary

The petitioners sued in the Court of the Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, Patuakhali for redemption of 1.05 acres transferred by three registered kabla deeds coupled with deeds of reconveyance. The suit was dismissed on contest. Their title appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patuakhali on 11 November 2019 because no one appeared for the appellants when it was called on for hearing. Their advocate explained that the appeal had been fixed on a public holiday, taken up the next day while the appellants' advocate was busy in another court, and conceded that the proper remedy was an application for readmission under Order XLI rule 19A. The High Court Division found no illegality or irregularity in the appellate court's order, noting that the Code provides a specific remedy for readmission in Order XLI rules 17, 19 and 19A. The Rule was discharged and the stay and status quo vacated.

Issues

Q1
Whether a civil revision under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure lies against an order dismissing a title appeal for default of appearance, where Order XLI provides a specific remedy for readmission.

Key points

Where an appeal is dismissed for default because the appellants are absent on repeated calls, the appellate court's order discloses no illegality or irregularity open to revision under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Code of Civil Procedure provides a specific remedy for readmission of an appeal dismissed for default under Order XLI rules 17, 19 and 19A, which the appellants should pursue before the appellate court.
A civil revision filed in error instead of an application for readmission was without substance, and the Rule was discharged with the interim orders vacated.

The Code of Civil Procedure has provided specific remedy for the appellants for readmission of above appeal in Rule 17, 19 and 19A of Order 41.

From the judgment, Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

Law considered

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 115(1)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI rules 17, 19 and 19A

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

Civil Revision 6412/2023, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 5 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.

Find in this judgmentPDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.6412 OF 2023

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

And

Most. Ayesha Bibi and others

…. Petitioners

-Versus-

Md. Selim Shikder and others

…. Opposite parties

Mr. Kazi Elias-Ur-Rahman, Advocate

…. For the petitioners.

Mr. Mohammad Eunus, Advocate

…. For the opposite parties.

Heard and Judgment on 06.08.2026

1On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite Nos.1-4 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patuakhali in Title Appeal No.64 of 2013 disallowing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2013 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, Patuakhali in Title Suit No.88 of 2010 dismissing the suit should not be set aside and or such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper..

Page 2

2Facts in short are that the petitioners as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.88 of 2010 for redemption of 1.05 acres land transferred by three registered kabla deeds coupled with three separate deeds of reconvenience.

3Defendant No.22 contested above suit by filing written statement and above suit was dismissed on contest by the trial Court.

4Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and decree of the trial Court above plaintiffs as appellants preferred title Appeal No.64 of 2013 to the District Judge, Patuakhali which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge who on 11.11.2019 dismissed above appeal for non appearance of the appellants .

5Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and decree of the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below above appellants as petitioners moved to this Court with this Civil Revisional application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and obtained this Rule.

6Mr. . Kazi Elias-Ur-Rahman, Advocate for the petitioners submits that above appeal was fixed for hearing on a date of public holiday. As such this Appeal was taken up for hearing on next date. The learned Advocate for the appellant filed hazira but he was busy with hearing of another case in another Court and he was unable to appear before the

Page 3

Court when above appeal was taken up for hearing and consequently above appeal was dismissed for default. In view of above facts the proper remedy of the appellant lies in Order 41 Rule 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for direct admission of above appeal. But erroneously instead of filing a petition under Order 41 Rule 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Court of Appeal below this Civil Revision under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed. The petitioners may be allowed to file a petition under Order 41 Rule 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the Court below for setting aside above order of dismissal of the appeal.

7On the other hand Mr. Mohammad Eunus, learned Advocate for the opposite party Nos.1-2 and 4 submits that Order 41 Rule 17, 19 and 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides specific provisions for readmission of an appeal dismissed for default in the impugned order the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below has rightly mention that the Advocate for the appellants and respondent Nos.2-5 filed separate haziras but none was found for the appellant when the appeal was taken up for hearing and the learned Judge rightly dismissed above appeal for default. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below. The Code of Civil Procedure provides specific provision for

Page 4

readmission of above appeal under Order 41 Rule 17, 19 and 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the learned Advocate has erroneously preferred this Civil Revisional application which is not tenable in law.

8I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined all materials on record including the impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2019.

9In the impugned order the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below mentioned that the appellants were found absent on repeated calls when the appeal was taken up for hearing. As such the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below dismissed above appeal for default. The learned Advocate for the appellants could not show any irregularity or illegality in above order of the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below which could be revised by this Court. The Code of Civil Procedure has provided specific remedy for the appellants for readmission of above appeal in Rule 17, 19 and 19A of Order 41.

10The learned Advocate for the appellants concedes that the filing of above division was an outcome of unintentional error on the part of the appointed Advocate for the appellants and he mentions that the appellants will file an appropriate petition for readmission of above appeal to the Court of Appeal below.

Page 5

11On consideration of above facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties I am unable to find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below nor I find any substance in this Civil Revisional application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Rule issued in this connection is liable to be discharged.

12In the result, the Rule is hereby discharged.

13The order of stay as well as status-quo granted at the time of issuance of the Rule is vacated.

14However, there will be no order as to costs.

15Send down the lower Court’s records immediately. MD. MASUDUR RAHMAN BENCH OFFICER