High Court Division · Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Abdur Rahman and another v Mohammad Mashuk and another
First Misc Appeal 226/2000 · Decided 14 May 2026
The plaintiffs filed a partition suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Moulvi Bazar and applied under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a temporary injunction. After hearing both sides, the trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo. The defendants appealed, and in 2000 a Division Bench admitted the appeal, stayed the status quo order so far as it concerned them, and observed that the suit should proceed in accordance with law. The advocates for both parties later died, and notices issued in 2025 drew no appearance. The appeal came before a Single Bench under Rule 1B of Chapter II of the High Court Division Rules, 1973. Noting that both sides admitted being co-sharers, that more than 25 years had passed and that the position of the suit was unknown, the court directed that the parties maintain their possession until disposal of the suit, if not already disposed of, and disposed of the appeal.
- Q1
What order should be made in a long-pending appeal against a status quo order in a partition suit where neither party appeared and the present position of the suit was unknown.
- Under Rule 1B of Chapter II of the Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, 1973, such a first miscellaneous appeal is now to be heard by a Single Bench, though earlier admitted by a Division Bench.
- There is a legitimate expectation that a suit will be disposed of within a reasonable time, especially where the court has directed the trial court to proceed with it.
- Where the parties were admitted co-sharers and the latest position of the suit was unknown, the parties should maintain their possession until disposal of the partition suit, if not already disposed of.
- The interim stay granted when the appeal was admitted was vacated on disposal of the appeal.
the parties should be maintained their possession till disposal of the Title Suit No.29 of 2000, if the suit is not already disposed of.
In the court’s own words.
First Misc Appeal 226/2000, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 3 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Present
Mr. Justice Md. Riaz Uddin Khan
First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 226 of 2000
With
Civil Rule No. 701 (FM) of 2000
IN THE MATTER OF:
Abdur Rahman and another
… Defendant-Appellants
-Versus-
Mohammad Mashuk and another
… Plaintiff-Respondents
None
…For the parties
Judgment on: 14.05.2026
Md. Riaz Uddin Khan, J:
1This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Moulvi Bazar in Title Suit No.29 of 2000 allowing an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the parties to maintain status-quo.
2A Division Bench of this Court admitted this appeal by order dated 17.08.2000 and on the same date issued Rule in Civil Rule No.701(FM) of 2000 and stayed the operation of the impugned order so far it relates to the appellant-petitioners concerned and further observed that the suit before the trial court would proceed in accordance with law.
3It appears from record that the learned advocates for both the parties died long ago for which a Division
Bench of this Court by order dated 05.03.2025 directed the office to issue notice in the form of N-10 upon both the parties and accordingly N-10 notices were issued but none appears for the parties.
4Though this first miscellaneous appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court as per the then rule of the Supreme Court (HCD) Rules, 1973 but as present as per Rule-1B of Chapter-II of the Rules, 1973 this appeal is to be heard by a Single Bench.
5Facts for disposal of this Miscellaneous Appeal in brief are that the opposite parties as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.29 of 2000 for partition. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction under Order-XXXIX Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant-appellants filed written objection. After hearing both the parties the trial court by the impugned order dated 01.06.2000 directed both the parties to maintain status-quo.
6Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 01.06.2000 this First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.08.2000 was pleased to admit this appeal.
7I have perused the memorandum of appeal and also gone through the impugned order. I have also perused the application for stay along with the annexures including the plaint, application for temporary injunction and written objection.
8The original title suit is filed for partition and both parties admitted that they are co-sharers in the suit land. It appears from record that this Court by
order dated 17.08.2000 stayed the operation of impugned order so far it relates to the defendant-appellants concerned and further observed that the title suit should proceed in accordance with law. In the mean time, more than 25 years has been elapsed. Since no one appears for the parties for which this Court was not informed about the present position of the Suit. It is legitimate expectation that the suit would be disposed of within reasonable time, especially when this Court directed the trial Court to proceed with the Title Suit in accordance with law.
9Be that as it may, in my view, since the interim order was passed by this Court on 17.08.2000 and there is no information regarding the latest position of the suit, the parties should be maintained their possession till disposal of the Title Suit No.29 of 2000, if the suit is not already disposed of.
10With this observation this appeal is disposed of. The connected Rule being No. 701(FM) of 2000 is also disposed of in the light of this judgment. However, there will be no order as to cost. The interim order dated 17.08.2000 passed by this Court stands vacated.
11Communicate this judgment at once. Ziaul Karim Bench Officer
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→
