Civil Revision Section 115 CPC High Court Bangladesh

Executive Summary & Statutory Authority

The appellate architecture of Bangladeshi civil litigation is tripartite: appeal (a statutory right of re-examination), review (a self-correcting remedy before the same forum), and revision (a supervisory jurisdictional check). These three remedies are neither interchangeable nor cumulative — a litigant must correctly identify the applicable remedy at the outset, because misconceived invocation of the wrong provision is fatal to maintainability and frequently time-barred by the time the error is discovered. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") structures this matrix across Part VII (Sections 96–112, Orders XLI–XLIV) for appeals and Part VIII (Sections 113–115, Order XLVII) for reference, review, and revision. The Civil Courts Act, 1887 (as amended in 2021) determines the pecuniary gateway for direct High Court Division ("HCD") appeals, while the Court-Fees Act, 1870 and Limitation Act, 1908 impose fiscal and temporal preconditions that, if breached, are jurisdictionally fatal regardless of merit.

This treatise provides the exhaustive statutory and procedural roadmap for practitioners litigating before the HCD under Sections 96, 114, and 115 CPC, integrating binding Appellate Division precedent.

Section I: First Appeal under Section 96 and Order XLI CPC

1.1 The Statutory Right and Its Limits

Section 96(1) CPC provides: "Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction, to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court." This is not a common-law right but a creature of statute — it exists only where expressly conferred, and can be curtailed by express legislative language (Section 96(3) bars appeal from a consent decree; Section 96(4) restricts appeals in petty valuation suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes to questions of law only).

Appealable vs. Non-Appealable Decrees: A "decree" under Section 2(2) CPC is the formal expression of adjudication conclusively determining the rights of parties. Preliminary decrees (e.g., in partition or mortgage suits under Order XX, Rule 18) are independently appealable; failure to appeal a preliminary decree generally forecloses challenge to its correctness at the final decree stage.

1.2 Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Forum Determination

Under Section 21 of the Civil Courts Act, 1887, as amended by the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2021, the District Judge's appellate pecuniary jurisdiction was enhanced to suits valued up to BDT 50,00,000 (Fifty Lacs). Where the original suit's valuation exceeds this threshold, the first appeal lies directly to the HCD under Section 96 read with Order XLI. This distinction is jurisdictionally sacrosanct — an appeal filed in the wrong forum due to a valuation miscalculation is liable to be returned under Order VII, Rule 10 (applied mutatis mutandis) or dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

1.3 Drafting Requirements: Order XLI, Rule 1

The Memorandum of Appeal must, under Order XLI, Rule 1(2), set forth the grounds of objection concisely, in numbered paragraphs, without argument or narrative. Grounds not taken in the memorandum cannot ordinarily be urged at hearing except by leave of the Court (Order XLI, Rule 2). The memorandum must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment and decree appealed from (Order XLI, Rule 1(1)).

1.4 First Miscellaneous Appeals (FMA) — Section 104 and Order XLIII

Not every order is a decree, and not every order is appealable. Section 104 read with Order XLIII, Rule 1 provides an exhaustive list of orders from which appeal lies as of right (e.g., orders under Section 35A on compensatory costs, orders rejecting an application for restoration under Order IX, orders granting or refusing temporary injunction under Order XXXIX). Orders outside this enumerated list are not appealable — the only recourse against such orders (where no other remedy exists) is Civil Revision under Section 115, provided jurisdictional error is demonstrable. This distinction is the single most litigated maintainability trap in Bangladeshi appellate practice.

1.5 The Doctrine of Merger

Once an appeal is decided, the trial court's decree merges into the appellate decree; the trial decree ceases to have independent existence for purposes of further challenge. This doctrine dictates that limitation for any further proceeding (second appeal in special statutes, or a Civil Revision against the appellate order) runs from the date of the appellate decree/order, not the original decree.

Section II: Interlocutory Relief Pending Appeal — Order XLI, Rule 5 and the "No Automatic Stay" Doctrine

2.1 The Statutory Text

Order XLI, Rule 5(1) provides: "An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred..."

This provision codifies the fundamental principle that filing an appeal does not, by itself, halt execution. The decree-holder remains free to execute unless and until the appellate court passes an express order of stay.

2.2 The Tripartite Test — Momtaz Begum v. Sirajul Islam, 41 DLR 474

In this landmark decision, the High Court Division held that a stay under Order XLI, Rule 5(3) can be granted only where the applicant satisfies three cumulative conditions:

1. Substantial loss would result to the applicant unless the stay is granted;
2. The application was made without unreasonable delay; and
3. The applicant has furnished security for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding.

The Court expressly rejected the notion that mere pendency of an appeal warrants automatic protection — the appellate court must apply judicial mind to each of the three elements, and a bare assertion of "irreparable loss" without particularization is insufficient.

2.3 Distinguishing Stay from Injunction

Order XLI, Rule 5 concerns stay of execution of the decree already passed. This is conceptually distinct from a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1–2, which restrains a party from committing a threatened act pending suit. Practitioners frequently conflate the two, filing injunction applications where a stay application is procedurally correct, resulting in rejection for misconceived relief.

2.4 Inherent Powers under Section 151 CPC

Where Order XLI, Rule 5 is inapplicable (e.g., stay sought against a non-decree order, or restitution required pending appeal), courts invoke Section 151 inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice — but this is a residual, not primary, remedy and is exercised sparingly.

Section III: Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC — The Core of HCD Supervisory Jurisdiction

3.1 Legislative Evolution: The 2003 Amendment

Prior to the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act VIII of 2003), Section 115 vested undifferentiated revisional power in the High Court Division over all subordinate courts, causing docket congestion. The 2003 amendment bifurcated revisional jurisdiction:

• Section 115(1): Revision to the High Court Division against a decree or order of a court of appeal subordinate to it, where the decree/order is not appealable, and jurisdictional error is shown.
• Section 115(2): Revision to the District Judge against a decree or order of an original court subordinate to it, where no appeal lies.
• Section 115(3): The HCD's discretionary power to call for records from the District Judge for satisfaction as to the regularity of proceedings.
• Section 115(4): An absolute bar — no revision lies to the HCD against an order made by the District Judge under Section 115(2).

3.2 The Exclusive Grounds — Deconstructing Section 115(1)

Revision lies only where it appears that the subordinate appellate court has:

(a) Exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law — acting ultra vires the statutory grant, e.g., entertaining a suit or appeal barred by limitation or specifically excluded by statute.

(b) Failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested — an abdication of statutory duty, e.g., refusing to decide an issue properly raised, or declining jurisdiction erroneously.

(c) Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity — this third ground is the most frequently invoked and most frequently misused.

3.3 Fact vs. Law: The Shaukat Ali and Abdul Wahab Standards

Major General Shaukat Ali v. Iftekhar Ali, 49 DLR (AD) 168: The Appellate Division held unequivocally that a revisional court under Section 115 does not sit as a second court of appeal. Concurrent findings of fact by courts below cannot be disturbed in revision merely because the revisional court would have reached a different conclusion. Interference is permissible only where the findings are: - based on no evidence whatsoever; - vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence; or - the result of a misreading of evidence on record.

Bangladesh v. Abdul Wahab, 44 DLR (AD) 246: The Appellate Division clarified that "material irregularity" and "illegality" within Section 115 are not synonymous with mere error of law. A misreading or non-reading of material evidence — evidence which, if properly considered, could have altered the outcome — constitutes a jurisdictional defect sufficient to attract revisional interference, because it strikes at the decision-making process itself, not merely its correctness.

Practical implication: Counsel drafting revision petitions must frame grounds around the process of adjudication (what evidence was ignored, what jurisdictional fact was wrongly assumed) rather than simply re-arguing the merits, which invites summary discharge of the Rule.

3.4 Mutual Exclusivity of Appeal and Revision — A.T.M. Abu Taher v. Principal, Joypara College, 55 DLR 352

The High Court Division held that where a statutory appeal is available under Section 96 or Section 104/Order XLIII, an application under Section 115 is not maintainable, regardless of how it is styled. A litigant cannot circumvent the appellate court fee burden or the appellate forum by disguising an appeal as a revision. This is a threshold maintainability question the Court examines suo motu even absent objection from the opposite party.

3.5 The Absolute Bar of Second Revision — Section 115(4) and Abdul Jalil v. Soleman Ali, 57 DLR 481

Where an original order of an Assistant Judge or Senior Assistant Judge is revised by the District Judge under Section 115(2), no further revision lies to the HCD. The Court in Abdul Jalil held this bar to be absolute and jurisdictional — not curable by consent or acquiescence. The only theoretical recourse thereafter is invocation of the Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 102, and even that avenue demands demonstration of a coram non judice order, palpable jurisdictional excess, or violation of natural justice — a considerably higher threshold than ordinary revisional grounds.

3.6 Conversion Applications

Where a party has erroneously filed an appeal that should have been a revision (or vice versa), Bangladeshi courts, exercising inherent power under Section 151 and by analogy to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, permit conversion of the proceeding upon application, provided the substance of the challenge and the underlying record remain identical, and provided limitation for the correct remedy has not independently expired (subject to Section 14 Limitation Act principles on bona fide prosecution in a wrong forum).

Section IV: Review under Section 114 and Order XLVII CPC

4.1 The Narrow Compass of Review

Section 114 CPC provides that any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for review, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, where: - no appeal is allowed by the Code from such decree/order; or - an appeal is allowed but has not been preferred; or - a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes.

Critical restriction: Review does not lie where an appeal has been preferred and entertained by the Appellate Division. Review and appellate remedies are mutually exclusive once the appellate process is engaged and disposed of on merits.

4.2 The Tripartite Grounds — Order XLVII, Rule 1

1. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree was passed. The burden of demonstrating due diligence is strict — mere subsequent discovery without an explanation for prior non-discovery is insufficient.

2. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. As held in M.A. Rouf v. Md. Harun-or-Rashid, 16 BLC (AD) 129, this must be an error so patent, obvious, and self-evident that it does not require elaborate reasoning, argument, or a fresh examination of evidence to establish. A debatable point of law or a wrong appreciation of evidence is a ground for appeal, not review — the Appellate Division emphasized that review is not a backdoor rehearing.

3. Any other sufficient reason — construed under the ejusdem generis rule. In Abdur Rahman v. State, 30 DLR (SC) 99, it was held that "sufficient reason" must be analogous in gravity and character to the two preceding specified grounds — it cannot be stretched to cover ordinary dissatisfaction with the outcome.

4.3 Procedural Safeguard — Same Bench Requirement (Rule 5)

Order XLVII, Rule 5 mandates that, so far as practicable, a review application must be heard by the same Judge or Bench that passed the original decree or order, except where that Judge has ceased to be attached to the Court, is unavailable, or is precluded by other sufficient cause. This safeguard ensures institutional consistency and prevents review from becoming a vehicle for forum-shopping to a differently-constituted bench.

4.4 Limitation for Review

• High Court Division: 20 days from the date of the decree/order, under Article 162, Limitation Act 1908.
• Subordinate Courts: 90 days, under Article 173, Limitation Act 1908.

Section V: Registry Compliance, Stamp Reporting, and Limitation Mechanics

5.1 The Stamp Reporter's Scrutiny

Every appeal, revision, and review petition filed in the HCD is first routed through the Stamp Reporter's Section, which examines: - correctness of court-fee computation (ad valorem under Schedule I Article 1 for appeals; fixed fee under Schedule II Article 11 for revisions); - limitation computation, including Section 12 exclusions for time spent obtaining certified copies; - formal compliance with Chapter IV of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973.

Defect memos issued by the Stamp Reporter must be cured within the time allowed, failing which the matter is reported to the Bench for orders, potentially resulting in rejection.

5.2 The Section 12 Exclusion — A Frequent Trap

Under Section 12, Limitation Act 1908, the time between the date of application for a certified copy and the date the copy is ready for delivery is excluded from the limitation computation. However, if the applicant delays in collecting the copy once ready, or fails to furnish requisite stamp paper promptly, that additional delay is not excluded and is charged against the litigant. Practitioners must retain the copying application receipt and the delivery endorsement to demonstrate the exact exclusion period before the Stamp Reporter.

5.3 Court-Fee Computation

• First Appeals (Section 96): Ad valorem fee under Schedule I, Article 1, Court-Fees Act 1870, computed on suit valuation, subject to a statutory ceiling (currently capped, presently BDT 50,000 maximum on the ad valorem scale).
• Civil Revisions (Section 115): Fixed fee under Schedule II, Article 11.
• Review Applications: Fixed fee under the corresponding Schedule II entry, typically nominal in comparison to appeal fees.

5.4 Caveat Protocol — Section 148A CPC

A prospective respondent apprehending an ex parte interim order may lodge a Caveat under Section 148A, obliging the court/filing section to notify the caveator before passing any interim order. Failure of the Filing Section to check the Caveat Register before listing an ex parte motion is a recurring procedural lapse that can vitiate an ad-interim stay obtained without notice.

Statutory Document Checklist

Regulatory Fees, Timelines & Penalty Matrix

Common Legal Traps & Compliance Pitfalls

1. Misconceived Appeal Against Non-Appealable Orders. Counsel frequently appeal interlocutory orders not enumerated in Order XLIII, Rule 1, believing all orders are appealable by parity of reasoning with decrees. Senior counsel first cross-checks the impugned order against the Order XLIII list; if absent, the correct remedy is Civil Revision under Section 115, filed within its own limitation period — delay caused by pursuing the wrong remedy is not automatically excused, though Section 14 Limitation Act (bona fide prosecution in wrong forum with due diligence) may sometimes rescue a diligent litigant.

2. The Section 115(4) Dead End. Litigants who obtain an adverse order from the District Judge under Section 115(2) sometimes attempt a "second revision" to the HCD, unaware of the absolute statutory bar confirmed in Abdul Jalil v. Soleman Ali. Senior counsel identifies at the outset whether the original order emanated from a court whose revisional supervisor is the District Judge (Section 115(2) track) or the HCD directly (Section 115(1) track), and structures the litigation strategy — including preservation of Article 102 writ arguments — before the District Judge stage concludes, since post-facto remedies are severely constrained.

3. Treating Revision as a Rehearing on Facts. Petitions drafted as a wholesale re-argument of evidence, without identifying a specific jurisdictional defect (excess, failure, or illegality/material irregularity per Shaukat Ali and Abdul Wahab), invite summary discharge of the Rule at the admission stage. Senior counsel fr

Frequently Asked Questions

<div style="margin-bottom:12px; padding-bottom:12px; border-bottom:1px solid #1E293B;">
  <a href="https://supremecourt.gov.bd/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color:#C5A059; font-weight:600; font-size:14px; text-decoration:underline;">Supreme Court of Bangladesh &nearr;</a>
  <p style="color:#94A3B8; font-size:12px; margin:4px 0 0 0; line-height:1.4;">High Court Division & Appellate Division Cause Lists, Judgments & Rules</p>
</div>

<div style="margin-bottom:12px; padding-bottom:12px; border-bottom:1px solid #1E293B;">
  <a href="https://cptu.gov.bd/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color:#C5A059; font-weight:600; font-size:14px; text-decoration:underline;">Central Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU) / IMED &nearr;</a>
  <p style="color:#94A3B8; font-size:12px; margin:4px 0 0 0; line-height:1.4;">Government e-GP Tender Appeals & Administrative Review Panels</p>
</div>

<div style="margin-bottom:12px; padding-bottom:12px; border-bottom:1px solid #1E293B;">
  <a href="https://biac.org.bd/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color:#C5A059; font-weight:600; font-size:14px; text-decoration:underline;">Bangladesh International Arbitration Centre (BIAC) &nearr;</a>
  <p style="color:#94A3B8; font-size:12px; margin:4px 0 0 0; line-height:1.4;">Institutional ADR Rules & Commercial Dispute Mediation Procedures</p>
</div>