TRW Insight / Bangladesh
An ex parte decree binds like any other unless the defendant moves within thirty days and proves defective service or sufficient cause. The 2026 amendments make that a once-only chance, and the same threshold discipline governs rejection of plaint, amendment and withdrawal.
Set aside ex parte decree applications in Bangladesh: the 2026 position
A defendant who finds a decree passed against them in their absence has a short window and a narrow set of tools. To set aside ex parte decree relief under Order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the defendant must apply to the court that passed the decree, usually within thirty days, and prove either that the summons was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance. Since the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2026, which took effect from 8 May 2025, a decree can be set aside under rule 13 only once at the instance of the same defendant.[2]
This guide treats the ex parte decree as the centre of a wider set of procedural remedies that decide most civil suits before a witness is heard. It covers rule 13 and rule 13A, service defects, article 164, restoration after default, review and appeal, and three threshold tools: rejection of plaint under Order VII rule 11, amendment of pleadings under Order VI rule 17, and withdrawal of suit under Order XXIII rule 1. Filing a suit, appeals and revision are covered in separate TRW guides linked below.
Summary: An ex parte decree in Bangladesh is set aside by a miscellaneous case in the same court under Order IX rule 13, filed within thirty days of the decree or, where summons was not duly served, within thirty days of knowledge. The defendant must prove defective service or sufficient cause, and the plaintiff carries the burden of proving service once it is denied. A defendant who appeared and filed a written statement can instead apply on affidavit under rule 13A, without evidence, on payment of costs of up to Tk 3,000. Either way, the decree can be set aside only once.
Key point: Count the thirty days from the right date. Article 164 of the Limitation Act runs from the date of the decree where summons was duly served, and from the date of knowledge only where it was not. A defendant who was served, appeared and then stopped attending cannot rely on the knowledge limb, and must explain any delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which rule 13(2) expressly applies.
At a glance
Two grounds
Rule 13 requires proof that summons was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance at the hearing.
Thirty days
Article 164 runs from the decree, or from knowledge where service was defective; section 5 condonation is available.
Once only
Since the 2026 amendment, rule 13 cannot be used twice by the same defendant; rule 13A already had that limit.
Rule 13A shortcut
A defendant who filed a written statement can apply on affidavit within thirty days and pay costs of up to Tk 3,000.
Threshold tools
Rejection of plaint, amendment of pleadings and withdrawal of suit shape the case long before trial.
Table of Contents
When a Bangladeshi court passes an ex parte decree
An ex parte decree is a decree passed after a hearing at which the defendant did not appear. It is a full decree: it can be executed, it binds the parties and, unless it is set aside or reversed, it determines title, possession or money exactly as a contested decree would. The Code creates three common routes to one.
Non-appearance at the hearing
Order IX rule 6 allows the court to proceed ex parte where the plaintiff appears, the defendant does not, and service of summons is proved. If service is not proved, the court must issue a second summons; if the summons was served too late for the defendant to appear, the court must adjourn and give notice of the new date.[2] A defendant who turns up at or before the adjourned ex parte hearing and shows good cause may be heard under rule 7, on terms, as if they had appeared on the first day.
Failure to file a written statement
Order VIII rule 1 gives the defendant thirty working days from service of summons to file a written statement. The court may extend that period for reasons recorded in writing, but never beyond sixty working days from service, and if the written statement is still not filed the court must dispose of the suit ex parte.[2]
Absence after appearance
The third route is the most common in land and partition suits: the defendant appears, files a written statement and then stops attending as the case moves to peremptory hearing. The decree is then ex parte against that defendant even though their pleading is on the record. Where some defendants appear and others do not, rule 11 lets the suit proceed and the court deals with the absent defendants when it pronounces judgment.[2]
Grounds to set aside ex parte decree relief under Order IX rule 13
Rule 13(1) lets a defendant against whom a decree is passed ex parte apply to the court that passed it. If the defendant satisfies the court that the summons was not duly served, or that they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the court must set the decree aside as against them, on such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.[2] The word is "shall": once a ground is proved, setting aside is not discretionary, though the terms are.
Ground one: summons not duly served
Due service is a condition for the validity of the ex parte hearing itself. The Appellate Division's decision reported at 35 DLR (AD) 162 is regularly cited for the proposition that where the court is satisfied there was no due service, it is bound to set the decree aside.[6] [7]
Ground two: sufficient cause for non-appearance
Where service is admitted or proved, the defendant must show what prevented them from appearing on the date the suit was called on. The Code does not define sufficient cause. Courts treat it as a matter of judicial discretion, exercised on evidence, not on assertions in the application. The cause must relate to the date of the hearing, not to the defendant's general circumstances months earlier.
The once-only rule introduced in 2026
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2026 (Act No. XXXVI of 2026) added a second proviso to rule 13(1): no decree may be set aside more than once under the rule at the instance of the same defendant. The amendment is stated to have effect from 8 May 2025.[2] A defendant who obtains restoration and then defaults again has no second rule 13 application.
Decrees that cannot be split
The first proviso to rule 13(1) provides that where the decree is of a nature that cannot be set aside against the applicant alone, it may be set aside against all or any of the other defendants as well.[2]
Service defects: how courts test whether summons was duly served
Most applications to set aside ex parte decrees turn on service. The modes of service have multiplied, and so have the ways a return can be attacked or defended.
The modes of service in 2026
Order V rule 9 provides for service through the court's process server or a courier service enlisted by the District Judge, and allows the court, on the plaintiff's application and at the plaintiff's cost, to direct additional service by SMS, voice call, instant messaging, fax or email, with proof of service kept on the record.[2] The 2025 reforms also require the plaint to state the parties' mobile numbers, national identity numbers and email addresses, so that electronic service is possible.[4] Rule 19B requires simultaneous service by registered post with acknowledgment due unless the court considers it unnecessary.[2]
Affixation, declarations and registered post
Where the defendant refuses to sign or cannot be found after due diligence, rule 17 allows the serving officer to affix a copy on the outer door or another conspicuous part of the house, with a report naming the person who identified the house. Rule 19A makes the serving officer's declaration evidence of the facts of service. Under rule 19B(2), a postal article returned with an endorsement that the defendant refused delivery leads the court to declare that summons was duly served.[2]
Who carries the burden
Once the defendant denies service, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove it. In Alhaj Mozammel Hoque Bhuiya v Md Humayun Kabir (12 May 2024) the High Court Division allowed a first miscellaneous appeal and set aside an ex parte decree because the plaintiff had not examined the process server or the attesting witnesses, and so had never discharged that burden. It drew on Appellate Division authority cited to it, including 48 DLR (AD) 159 and 40 DLR (AD) 193, and held that a transfer of the suit property did not extinguish the defendant's right to challenge the decree.[7]
When a declaration is enough
The burden can be discharged on paper. In Md Shahidullah (Sikder) Molla v Ezam Mollah (17 November 2025) the High Court Division restored the trial court's refusal to set aside a 2002 preliminary decree. The return showed affixation under rule 17 with a declaration under rule 19A, and postal acknowledgments were on record. Following 40 DLR (AD) 193 and 36 DLR (AD) 248, the court held that examining the process server is not mandatory where the return carries a valid declaration, and that the plaintiff had discharged its onus.[6]
A strong service challenge compares the certified return with the defendant's real address and whereabouts on the stated date, tests the postal record, and pleads any suppression of summons with particulars.
Limitation: the thirty-day window to set aside ex parte decree orders
Article 164 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 gives a defendant thirty days to apply to set aside a decree passed ex parte. Time runs from the date of the decree or, where the summons was not duly served, from the date the applicant had knowledge of the decree.[3]
Choosing the right starting date
The knowledge limb is available only if service was defective. In Mozammel Hoque Bhuiya the defendant first learned of the decree when the plaintiff served notice for mutation of the record, and filed eighteen days later; the High Court Division treated the application as within time.[7] In Shahidullah, by contrast, a miscellaneous case filed nineteen years after a decree was described as far outside article 164 unless fraud or non-service was proved.[6] The application should plead the date and circumstances of knowledge precisely, and attach whatever document first disclosed the decree.
Condonation under section 5
Rule 13(2) applies section 5 of the Limitation Act to applications under rule 13(1), so a late application can be admitted if the defendant shows sufficient cause for the delay.[2] A separate condonation application, supported by affidavit and documents, is the safer course than a paragraph buried in the main petition.
Fraud
Where the decree was obtained by fraud, such as suppression of summons in collusion with the process server, the High Court Division has applied the Appellate Division's statement in 50 DLR (AD) 205 that the bar of limitation does not apply where elements of fraud in obtaining the ex parte decree are found.[7] Fraud must be pleaded with particulars and proved; a bare allegation will not reopen an old decree.
Sufficient cause: what succeeds and what fails
Sufficient cause is where most contested attempts to set aside ex parte decrees are won or lost. It is decided on the facts, but the pattern of reported outcomes is consistent. Courts look for a specific, documented reason tied to the hearing date, and for a defendant who acted promptly once the reason ended.
In Kishan Chandra Shaha v Pintu Chandra Das (2 July 2026) the defendants had been arrested in a criminal case, obtained bail, filed a joint written statement and then stayed away on nineteen consecutive dates while the plaintiff examined two witnesses. The High Court Division upheld the refusal to set the decree aside, because the application offered no cogent reason for those absences.[8] A past custody period could not explain absence more than a year later.
Documented illness or hospital admission on the hearing date, or the incapacity of the conducting advocate, can persuade when proved. Unexplained absence, general busyness and repeated adjournment requests rarely do. A defendant who was served must keep in touch with the suit.
Directly setting aside under Order IX rule 13A
Rule 13A, inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2006, lets the court set aside an ex parte decree directly, without requiring evidence of sufficient cause, in order to avoid delay. The court may impose costs of up to Tk 3,000.[2] Three conditions apply: the applicant must be a defendant who appeared and filed a written statement; the application must be supported by affidavit; and it must be made within thirty days of the date of the decree. A decree cannot be set aside more than once under rule 13A at the instance of the same defendant, and the court must serve notice of the order on the plaintiff at the defendant's cost.[2]
Rule 13A is the quickest way to set aside ex parte decree consequences for a defendant who has a written statement on file and missed a hearing. It is not available to a defendant who never appeared, and its thirty days run strictly from the decree, with no knowledge limb. Where the window has passed, the defendant must use Order IX rule 13 and prove sufficient cause.
The miscellaneous case: procedure and what happens next
An application under Order IX rule 13 to set aside ex parte decree findings is registered as a miscellaneous case and tried on evidence. Rule 14 bars the court from setting aside any decree without notice to the opposite party.[2] The plaintiff files a written objection, both sides call witnesses, and the court decides on service or sufficient cause before it considers the merits of the suit at all.
Restoration and the stage of the suit
Under rule 15, when a decree is set aside under rule 13 the suit proceeds from the stage it had reached immediately before the decree was passed.[2] The court may also impose terms, including costs or payment into court, as a condition of restoration.
Execution while the case is pending
Filing a miscellaneous case does not stay execution of the decree. The defendant must apply for a stay or other interim protection, and the decree-holder should expect to argue it. The tests for interim relief, and how courts frame stays and status quo orders, are covered in our guide to interim remedies in Bangladesh and in temporary injunctions in Bangladesh. Where execution has already begun, see our guide to execution cases in Bangladesh.
Appeal, revision or review: alternatives to rule 13
A defendant who wants to set aside ex parte decree consequences has more than one door, and choosing the wrong one wastes the limitation period.
Appeal against the decree itself
Section 96(2) of the Code provides that an appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.[1] An appeal attacks the decree on its merits and on the record as it stands. It suits a defendant who has no proof of defective service or sufficient cause but believes the plaintiff's own evidence did not justify the decree. Forum, limitation and stay of execution pending appeal are explained in our guide to civil appeals in Bangladesh.
Appeal or revision against the order on the miscellaneous case
Order XLIII rule 1(d) makes an order under rule 13 rejecting an application to set aside an ex parte decree appealable, in a case open to appeal.[2] An order allowing the application is not on that list, so a plaintiff who wants to challenge restoration must use revision under section 115. The tiers and the error-of-law test are set out in our guide to civil revision in Bangladesh.
Review under section 114 and Order XLVII
Section 114 and Order XLVII allow a person aggrieved by a decree or order from which no appeal has been preferred, or from which no appeal is allowed, to apply to the same court for review on discovery of new and important evidence that could not be produced despite due diligence, on account of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason.[1] [2] Article 173 allows ninety days for most review applications.[3]
Review is narrow. An order rejecting a review is not appealable, a review cannot be granted without notice to the other side, and no application to review an order made on review will be entertained.[2] Review is the right remedy for an obvious error, such as a decree that ignores a written statement on file; it is not a second hearing on service or sufficient cause.
Comparing the remedies
The table below compares the main routes against an ex parte decree and the related default orders. On a phone, scroll it sideways.
| Remedy | Provision | Used when | Time limit | Next step if refused |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Set aside ex parte decree | CPC Order IX rule 13 | Summons not duly served, or sufficient cause for absence | 30 days from decree or knowledge (art 164); section 5 applies | Appeal under Order XLIII rule 1(d) |
| Direct setting aside | CPC Order IX rule 13A | Defendant appeared and filed a written statement; affidavit; costs up to Tk 3,000 | 30 days from the decree | Rule 13, within limitation; once only |
| Appeal against the decree | CPC section 96(2) | Decree wrong on the record as it stands | 30 or 90 days, depending on the forum | Revision or leave, as the forum allows |
| Review | CPC section 114 and Order XLVII | New evidence, error apparent on the record, other sufficient reason | 90 days for most reviews (art 173) | Rejection is not appealable |
| Restore suit dismissed for default | CPC Order IX rules 9 and 9A | Plaintiff absent; sufficient cause, or affidavit and costs up to Tk 1,000 | 30 days from dismissal (art 163) | Appeal under Order XLIII rule 1(c) |
| Rejection of plaint | CPC Order VII rule 11 | No cause of action, uncorrected valuation or stamp, or bar on the plaint's face | Any stage of the suit | Appeal, as rejection is a decree |
Restoration of a suit dismissed for default: Order IX rules 4, 9 and 9A
Plaintiffs face the mirror image of the ex parte decree: dismissal for default. Under rule 8, where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not, the suit is dismissed unless the defendant admits the claim. Rule 9 then bars a fresh suit on the same cause of action, but allows the plaintiff to apply to set the dismissal aside on sufficient cause, on notice to the other side.[2] Dismissals where neither party appears, or for failure to pay process costs, are restored under rule 4, and a fresh suit remains possible subject to limitation.[2]
Thirty days under article 163
Article 163 gives a plaintiff thirty days from the date of dismissal to apply to set aside a dismissal for default.[3] Unlike article 164, there is no knowledge limb, because the plaintiff is presumed to know their own suit.
Rule 9A: direct restoration on affidavit
Rule 9A allows the court to set aside a rule 8 dismissal directly, without evidence of sufficient cause, on costs of up to Tk 1,000, if the plaintiff applies on affidavit within thirty days of the dismissal. It can be used only once.[2] In Mahmuda Noor v Shahnaj Begum (11 March 2025) a plaintiff applied under rule 9A about four months after dismissal, blaming an advocate's illness. The High Court Division held that the application could not succeed under rule 9A, nor be treated as one under rule 9, because it stated no date of knowledge and no condonation had been sought. It left the plaintiff at liberty to file a fresh rule 9 application.[9]
Rejection of plaint under Order VII rule 11
Rejection of plaint is the defendant's tool for ending a suit at the threshold, before evidence. Order VII rule 11 requires the court to reject a plaint in four cases: where it does not disclose a cause of action; where the relief is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed; where the plaint is insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff fails to supply the stamp within the time fixed; and where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law. The time the court fixes to correct valuation or stamp duty cannot exceed twenty-one days.[2]
The court reads the plaint alone
The court decides a petition for rejection of plaint on the plaint, taking its averments as true, without considering the defence. In Mosa Nazmunnahar v Md Asad Miah (23 November 2025) the High Court Division applied the Appellate Division's rule, reported at 10 BLC (AD) 8, that the court may not travel beyond the plaint to find grounds for rejection.[11] The same judgment applied 13 BLD (AD) 217 and 52 DLR (AD) 49: res judicata and limitation are ordinarily mixed questions of law and fact for trial, not grounds for rejection under clause (d).[11]
At any stage, including before the written statement
Rejection of plaint is not tied to any stage of the suit. In Most Maksuda Khatun v Mridha Md Jamiruddin (8 January 2026) an appellate court had held that a plaint could not be rejected before a written statement was filed. The High Court Division disagreed: neither the written statement nor the stage of the suit is a condition precedent. It relied on 73 DLR 554, which reconsidered the earlier view in 64 DLR 48, and on 45 DLR (AD) 31, and remanded the appeal for decision on the merits.[10]
Consequences of rejection
Section 2(2) of the Code deems the rejection of a plaint to be a decree, so the plaintiff's remedy is an appeal.[1] Under rule 13, rejection does not of its own force prevent the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint on the same cause of action, subject to limitation.[2] An order refusing to reject is interlocutory; in Nazmunnahar it was challenged by revision before the District Judge and then the High Court Division.[11] Rejection should also be distinguished from return of plaint under rule 10, which sends the plaint to the court with jurisdiction.
Drafting a petition for rejection of plaint
- Quote the plaint, paragraph by paragraph, to show the bar or the missing cause of action from its own words.
- Name the statute said to bar the suit, and show the bar applies on the plaintiff's own case.
- Avoid disputed facts; a petition that depends on the written statement or documents outside the plaint invites refusal.
- Preserve the point as an issue in the written statement in case the petition is refused.
Amendment of pleadings under Order VI rule 17
Order VI rule 17 allows the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to permit either party to alter or amend its pleadings on just terms, and requires all amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy. Two provisos added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2012 limit that power: no amendment is allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court finds that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier; and if a post-commencement application is made to delay the proceedings, the court must order compensatory costs to the objector.[2]
The governing principles
In Abdul Alim v Hazi Md Aiyub (16 November 2025) the High Court Division drew together the Appellate Division's authorities. An amendment may be allowed even on appeal where it is needed to decide the real controversy, if necessary on costs. It will not be allowed to introduce a completely different defence, to change the nature of the suit, to take away a right accrued by lapse of time, to withdraw an admission or to substitute a new cause of action. Applying those limits, the court rejected an appellate-stage amendment of the plaint with costs of Tk 10,000.[13]
Adding relief on the same foundation
The principles cut both ways. In Mst Shahida Bewa v Md Abdul Kuddus Bepari (2 March 2026) the High Court Division allowed an appellate-stage amendment adding a prayer for recovery of possession to a suit for cancellation of deeds and declaration of title. The plaint already pleaded the dispossession, and the omission was the advocate's. Relying on 31 DLR (AD) 133 and 1998 BLD (AD) 121, the court held that a relief resting on the same foundation does not change the nature of the suit, and that costs, not refusal, answered any delay.[12]
Opposing an amendment: the objection petition
A party resisting amendment of pleadings should file a written objection that addresses the rule's limits directly, rather than simply calling the application dilatory. The strongest objections show that trial has commenced and the matter was available earlier, that the amendment withdraws an admission or substitutes a new cause of action, that the new claim is now time-barred, or that it fills a lacuna exposed by the evidence. Where the court is minded to allow the amendment, the objector should ask for compensatory costs under the second proviso and for leave to file an additional written statement.
After leave is granted
Under rule 18, a party granted leave must amend within the time the order fixes or, if none is fixed, within fourteen days, failing which it cannot amend without an extension.[2] Separately, section 153 gives the court a general power to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit.[1]
Withdrawal of suit under Order XXIII rule 1
Order XXIII rule 1 gives the plaintiff two different kinds of withdrawal of suit, and the difference decides whether the claim survives. A withdrawal of suit is also the plaintiff's answer to a defect that would otherwise invite rejection of plaint or an adverse decree.
Withdrawal without liberty
Under rule 1(1) the plaintiff may, at any time after institution, withdraw the suit or abandon part of the claim against all or any defendants. If that is done without the court's permission, rule 1(3) makes the plaintiff liable for costs and precludes any fresh suit on the same subject matter or part of the claim.[2] An unconditional withdrawal of suit is therefore final, and should never be filed as a tactical pause.
Withdrawal with liberty to sue afresh
Under rule 1(2) the court may permit withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit if it is satisfied that the suit must fail because of a formal defect, or that there are other sufficient grounds.[2] In Sufia Begum v Nazrul Islam (1 June 2025) the High Court Division, hearing a first appeal against rejection of a plaint, allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with permission to sue afresh. It held that the remedy is available even at the appellate stage, applying 25 DLR 485 and 50 DLR (AD) 71, which hold that a plaintiff may withdraw at any time, including during an appeal, though the relief remains discretionary.[14]
The conditions that follow
Three further rules matter. A court cannot permit one of several plaintiffs to withdraw without the others' consent. A fresh suit filed with permission is bound by limitation as if the first suit had never been filed, so time spent in the first suit is not saved by rule 1. And Order XXIII does not apply to execution proceedings.[2] Withdrawal with liberty is therefore worth little if limitation has already run on the fresh claim.
Compromise and withdrawal to arbitration
Withdrawal should be distinguished from compromise. Under rule 3, where a suit is adjusted by lawful agreement or satisfaction, the court records it and passes a decree in its terms.[2] Under section 89B, parties may jointly apply at any stage to withdraw the suit for arbitration, and may re-institute it if the arbitration does not proceed or no award is made.[1] Settlement inside the suit through mediation is covered in our guide to court-annexed mediation in Bangladesh.
Step by step: acting on an ex parte decree
The sequence below is how we approach an instruction to set aside ex parte decree consequences, whether we act for the defendant or the decree-holder. It assumes the decree was passed by a civil court under the Code; special statutes may set different periods.
Obtain the record
Apply for certified copies of the order sheet, service returns, postal acknowledgments, the judgment and the decree.
Fix the start date
Decide whether article 164 runs from the decree or from knowledge, and calendar thirty days from the earlier possible date.
Choose the route
Use rule 13A if a written statement is on file and the decree is under thirty days old; otherwise rule 13, appeal or review.
Build the evidence
Collect medical, travel and postal records, and identify witnesses who can speak to the alleged service.
Explain any delay
File a separate section 5 condonation application on affidavit, accounting for the whole period of delay.
Protect against execution
Apply promptly for a stay or other interim order, because the pending case does not stop execution.
Prepare to proceed
Have the written statement and evidence ready, since the restored suit resumes from the stage it had reached.
For decree-holders
Prove service through the process server, the rule 19A declaration and the registered post record, and press for an early hearing.
Two points apply throughout. Obtain certified copies early, because the order sheet and service returns usually decide the case. And remember that both rule 13 and rule 13A are now once-only remedies, so the first application must be the best one.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Counting from the wrong date. The knowledge limb of article 164 applies only where summons was not duly served.[3]
- Treating Order IX rule 13 and rule 13A as interchangeable. They are not. Using rule 13A without a written statement on file fails because the rule is limited to a defendant who appeared and filed one.[2]
- Seeking rejection of plaint on disputed facts. Only the plaint is read.[11]
- Applying to amend years into an appeal without explanation. Delay without due diligence is fatal under the first proviso.[13]
- Withdrawing without liberty. An unconditional withdrawal of suit bars a fresh claim.[2]
Strategy for 2026 and beyond
Three features of the current system shape strategy. First, the backlog: the Law Minister, Md Asaduzzaman, told Parliament in July 2026 that more than 46 lakh cases were pending, including about 16.9 lakh civil cases in the lower courts as of 31 March 2026.[5] A miscellaneous case that should have been avoided can delay a suit for years. Second, the 2026 amendments push courts toward finality: once-only restoration, electronic service, fewer adjournments and execution within the suit.[2] [4]
For defendants, the safest course is to appear, file the written statement within thirty working days and keep attending. For plaintiffs, the safest decree is one supported by a clean service record and evidence, because that is what survives a later application to set aside ex parte decree findings. The full life of a suit, from plaint to decree, is set out in our guide to civil suit filing in Bangladesh. Our real estate disputes practice acts in title, partition and possession suits where these remedies arise most often.
Frequently asked questions
How long do I have to set aside ex parte decree orders in Bangladesh?
What are the grounds under Order IX rule 13?
Either that the summons was not duly served, or that you were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. If either is proved, the court must set the decree aside, on terms it considers fit.[2]
Can an ex parte decree be set aside more than once?
No. Since the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2026, a decree cannot be set aside more than once under rule 13 at the instance of the same defendant, and rule 13A carries the same limit.[2]
What is Order IX rule 13A?
A fast route for a defendant who appeared and filed a written statement. On an affidavit application within thirty days of the decree, the court may set the decree aside without evidence of sufficient cause, on costs of up to Tk 3,000.[2]
Who must prove that summons was served?
Should I appeal or file a miscellaneous case?
How is a suit dismissed for default restored?
When will a court allow rejection of plaint?
Can pleadings be amended after trial begins?
Does withdrawal of suit stop me from suing again?
Yes, unless the court grants permission to withdraw with liberty to sue afresh for a formal defect or other sufficient grounds. Even then, the fresh suit is bound by limitation as if the first had not been filed.[2]
Source register
Primary legal and regulatory sources
Materials checked on 20 October 2026. Confirm the current official text before relying on any provision.
- Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), as amended by Act No. XXXVI of 2026 — Laws of Bangladesh
- Code of Civil Procedure 1908, First Schedule (Orders V to IX, XXIII, XLIII and XLVII), as amended by Act No. XXXVI of 2026 — Laws of Bangladesh
- Limitation Act 1908, First Schedule (articles 163, 164 and 173) — Laws of Bangladesh
- The Daily Star — Key legislative reforms of 2025 in Bangladesh (Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 2025)
- UNB, 7 July 2026 — Over 46 lakh cases pending in country's courts: Law Minister
- High Court Division, Md Shahidullah (Sikder) Molla v Ezam Mollah, Civil Revision No. 5149 of 2024 (17 November 2025)
- High Court Division, Alhaj Mozammel Hoque Bhuiya v Md Humayun Kabir, First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 218 of 2022 (12 May 2024)
- High Court Division, Kishan Chandra Shaha v Pintu Chandra Das Shuklabaiddha, Civil Revision No. 2813 of 2025 (2 July 2026)
- High Court Division, Mahmuda Noor (Khuki) v Shahnaj Begum, First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 346 of 2023 (11 March 2025)
- High Court Division, Most Maksuda Khatun v Mridha Md Jamiruddin, Civil Revision No. 1869 of 2024 (8 January 2026)
- High Court Division, Mosa Nazmunnahar v Md Asad Miah, Civil Revision No. 769 of 2025 (23 November 2025)
- High Court Division, Mst Shahida Bewa v Md Abdul Kuddus Bepari, Civil Revision No. 3774 of 2023 (2 March 2026)
- High Court Division, Abdul Alim v Hazi Md Aiyub, Civil Revision No. 05 of 2024 (16 November 2025)
- High Court Division, Sufia Begum v Nazrul Islam (heirs), First Appeal No. 394 of 2017 (1 June 2025)
Related TRW assistance
Move from information to a defined next step
TRW acts for defendants and decree-holders in miscellaneous cases under Order IX, petitions for rejection of plaint, amendment and withdrawal applications, appeals and revisions across Bangladesh. Explore our real estate disputes practice and dispute resolution practice, or contact TRW before the thirty days run.