Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

High Court Division · Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Md. Ashraful Alam Jahid v Mst. Mim Akter

First Misc Appeal 591/2025 · Decided 11 August 2026

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

2judges on the bench

5pages

16paragraphs

2laws considered

Summary

The respondent sued her husband, the appellant, in the court of the Joint District Judge, 5th Court, Dhaka for a declaration of title to a river-going ship and to restrain him from transferring it, claiming that he had given her the ship out of love and affection in 2021 and delivered possession. She applied under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a temporary injunction, saying he was trying to sell it. The appellant denied any gift and claimed ownership. The trial court restrained him from transferring the ship, and he filed a first miscellaneous appeal with a connected Civil Rule. At the hearing, both advocates agreed that justice would be met if neither party transferred the ship and the suit was decided quickly, and undertook not to seek adjournments. The High Court Division directed both parties to maintain status quo as to transfer of the ship until disposal of the suit, directed disposal within six months, and disposed of the appeal and Rule.

Issues

Q1
What interim order should govern a river-going ship, claimed by the wife under a gift from her husband, pending trial of her title suit.

Key points

Where both sides conceded that neither should transfer the disputed ship pending trial, the ends of justice were met by a mutual order of status quo as to transfer.
The appellant and the respondent were both directed to maintain status quo as to transfer of the ship until disposal of the suit.
The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit on merit within six months of receipt of the order.
The first miscellaneous appeal and the connected Civil Rule were disposed of by a single judgment.

Accordingly we are directing that the appellant and respondent both shall maintain status-quo as to transfer of above ship till disposal of above suit and the learned Joint District Judge is directed to dispose of above suit expeditiously

From the judgment, Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

Law considered

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 151

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

First Misc Appeal 591/2025, 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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

and

Ms. Justice Tamanna Rahman Khalidi

FIRST MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.591 of 2025

With

Civil Rule No.419(fm) of 2025

Md. Ashraful Alam Jahid

… Appellant

-Versus-

Mst. Mim Akter

…for the respondent

Mr. Sasti Sarker, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Laxman Biswas, Advocate

… For the appellant

Mr. Aktaruzzaman, Advocate

… For the respondent

Heard & Judgment on: 11.08.2026.

S M Kuddus Zaman, J

1This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 25.05.2025 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 5th Court, Dhaka in Title Suit No.175 of 2025 allowing the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2Civil Rule No.419(fm) of 2025 having arisen out of this First Miscellaneous Appeal above appeal and civil rule are heard together and being disposed of by this single judgment.

Page 2

3Facts in short are that the respondent as plaintiff instituted above suit for declaration of title for the ship described in the schedule to the plaint and for a further decree restraining the defendant from transferring above ship alleging that above ship was owned, held and possessed by the defendant who married the plaintiff and out of love and affection he transferred above ship to the plaintiff on 07.11.2021 and delivered possession.

4In above suit plaintiff filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for an order of temporary injunction alleging that the defendant is making endeavor to transfer above ship by sale and if above ship is transferred to a third party then the existence of above ship will be endangered and multiplicity of suit will arise.

5Defendant No.1 contested above petition by filing a written objection alleging that he did not transfer above ship to the plaintiff by gift and above ship is still in the ownership and possession of the defendant.

6The learned Joint District allowed above petition and passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from transferring above ship.

7Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and order of the trial court above defendant

Page 3

as appellant moved to this court and preferred this first miscellaneous appeal and obtained above rule.

8Mr. Sasti Sarker learned Advocate for the appellant submits that above ship was in the ownership and possession of the defendant on the date of filing of above petition for injunction. But subsequently defendant has forcibly taken over possession of above ship. The petitioner has filed a petition to the trial court for permission to operate above ship which is pending for decision. The appellant shall not transfer above ship till disposal of the suit and the respondent should also be restrained from transferring above ship and this court may pass a direction upon the trial court to dispose of above suit on merit within a period of 03 (three) months.

9On the other hand Mr. Aktaruzzaman learned Advocate for the respondent concedes to above submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellant and submits that the ends of justice will be met and the ship will remain navigable if an order is passed by this court for expeditious disposal of the suit. The respondent shall not transfer above ship till disposal of the suit. This court may pass an appropriate order so that no party seeks any adjournment in the trial court and ensure expeditious disposal of the suit.

Page 4

10We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined all materials on record.

11As mentioned above a river going ship is the subject matter of above suit which was owned, held and possessed by the appellant. Respondent claims that the appellant who is her husband transferred above ship to her by gift and the same is still in her possession. The defendant has admitted by filing a petition under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that above ship is in the possession of the plaintiff. The learned Advocates for the respective parties have frankly conceded that the ends of justice will be met if both the parties refrain from transferring above ship to avoid further complications and delay in the disposal of above suit and above suit is disposed of expeditiously within a period of 06 (six) months. The learned Advocates also assured that they would not seek adjournments during the trial of the suit.

12On consideration of above facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned Advocates for respective parties we hold that the ends of justice will be met if both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as to transfer of above ship till disposal of the suit and the learned Joint District Judge is directed to dispose of above suit on

Page 5

merit within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order.

13Accordingly we are directing that the appellant and respondent both shall maintain status-quo as to transfer of above ship till disposal of above suit and the learned Joint District Judge is directed to dispose of above suit expeditiously within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order.

14The First Miscellaneous Appeal and the connecting Civil Rule No.419(fm) of 2025 are accordingly disposed of.

15Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted down to the Court concerned at once. Tamanna Rahman Khalidi, J

I agree.

16Md. Kamrul Islam Assistant Bench Officer