High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Jamal Hossain v Mabiya Khatun and others
Civil Revision 689/2020 · Rule discharged · Decided 9 September 2026
The plaintiff sued for a declaration that an ex parte decree of 24.04.2007 in an earlier partition suit, Other Suit No. 83 of 2002, was not binding on him, claiming the land through a chain of transfers and alleging that the decree was obtained by suppressing the summons. The decree had been put into execution in Execution Case No. 01 of 2016. The Senior Assistant Judge, Satkania, Chattogram stayed the execution, but the Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Chattogram set that order aside in revision. The plaintiff obtained this Rule under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, with an interim stay. The High Court Division noted that it could only examine whether there was an error on an important question of law causing a failure of justice. As the plaintiff had claimed the land from the judgment debtor during the earlier suit and sought only a declaration, without claiming title, the lower revisional court rightly rejected the stay. The Rule was discharged and the interim order vacated.
- Whether the lower revisional court erred in setting aside a stay of execution of an ex parte partition decree pending the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the decree was not binding on him.
- In a revision under section 115(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court Division can only examine whether there is an error on an important question of law which occasioned an ultimate failure of justice.
- Where the plaintiff claimed the suit land from the judgment debtor of an earlier suit during its pendency and sought only a declaration that the earlier decree was not binding on him, without claiming title, the lower revisional court rightly rejected his application to stay execution of that decree.
- The petitioner failed to show any error of law, let alone an important question of law, committed by the lower revisional court.
- On discharge of the Rule, the interim order staying the execution proceedings stood vacated.
the present petitioner claimed the suit land from the judgment debtor of the earlier suit during pendency of earlier suit and he has not claimed title of the suit land rather sought only a declaration that the decree passed earlier is not binding upon him.
