The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908); Order 9, rule 8

Whether the cause of action to bring a suit for partition subsists even after dismissal of the earlier suit for default under rule 8 of Order 9 of the Code.

There is no limitation for filing a suit for partition and unless there is a total ouster of the right of a co-sharer from the ejmali property he shall be deemed to be in ejmali possession of the properties sought to be partitioned, if not partitioned earlier by metes and bounds. The cause of action for filing a suit for partition arises when the other co-sharer or co-sharers refuse the plaintiff to give his due share from the ejmali property. And the cause of action for filing a suit for partition being continuing and recurring it shall continue unless the other co-sharers give the plaintiff his due share partitioning the suit land by metes and bounds………………(6)

Public policy is equivalent to "policy of the law". And "policy of the law" cannot be to deprive a person from his legitimate share in the ejmali property. The aim of public policy shall always be to ensure and safeguard the legal right of a person which might have accrued to him under a statute as well as under the personal law. If the purport and scope of a public policy is extended to the extent that inspite of the repeated demand by a person of his due share from the other co-sharers in the ejmali property he is not given his due share, and then because of the dismissal of an earlier suit for partition if he is precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the ground of public policy and upliftment and development, then the other co-sharers shall be encouraged to enjoy and possess property more than their share. Equally there cannot be any upliftment and development on the land or property by a co-sharer to the deprivation and at the cost of the legitimate right of the other co-sharer and if that is allowed to be done that will lead to a dangerous situation and giving premium to the primitive rule of 'might is right'. Public policy demand that a co-sharer who is enjoying more land than his share should part away with the excess land and give the due share to his other co-sharer………………………….(9) 

The Companies Act, 1994 (Act No. 18 of 1994); section 193

Refusal by the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies and jurisdiction of the High Court Division

Section 193 of the Companies Act, 1994 has not been articulated as a provision, which comes under the ambit of the Company Bench of the High Court Division of Bangladesh Supreme Court as provided in section 2(d) of the Companies Act, 1994. The provision of section 193 has not conferred any jurisdiction upon the Company Bench of the High Court Division to adjudicate any question arising out of  to exercise power under the provision of section 193. Section 2(d) of the Companies Act, 1994, which conferred power upon the Company Bench, has categorically provided that in order to exercise power in respect of adjudicating any dispute respecting any company express and specific jurisdiction must be available under the Companies Act, 1994. Alike the sections 12, 60, 43, 81, 85(3), 156, 197, 233 and 241 conferring specific jurisdiction upon the Company Bench, the provision of section 193 of the Companies Act, 1994 has not empowered the Company Bench to exercise any jurisdiction regarding any dispute arising out of the provision of section 193 of the Companies Act, 1994................................(13) 

Amendment of a plaint dates back to the filing of the suit. But the amendment of a substantive law by way of repeal or addition cannot date back to the date of its legislation unless expressly laid down or by necessary implication inferred……………………………….(14 & 16) 

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908); Order XLI, rules 17, 19, 19A

When an appeal is dismissed under rule 17 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner should avail the specific remedy by way of an application under Order XLI, rules 19 or 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure for re-admission of the appeal and should not move to the High Court Division in revisional jurisdiction. Where there are specific remedies available to a party under the Code, he cannot challenge the said order in revisional jurisdiction at his sweet will…………………………………..(5) 

The Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872); section 101

Presumption of innocence and burden of proof

The burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts always rests on the prosecution and on its failure; it cannot fall back upon the evidence adduced by the accused in support of its defence to rest its case solely thereon. In a criminal case, it is for the prosecution to bring the guilt home to the accused. The fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence……………………………(17)

Where the accused raises the plea of alibi, burden lies on him to substantiate that fact at least to the extent of a reasonable probability. Even if the evidence produced is capable of creating doubt, he is entitled to benefit of doubt…………………………(18)

It is the main principle of criminal law that an accused person must be presumed to be innocent unless and until it is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that he or she, as the case may be, is guilty.………………………..(25)

In a criminal case it is the duty of the court to review the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and the defence. If after an examination of the whole evidence, the court is of opinion that there is reasonable possibility that the defence put forward by the accused might be true, it is clear that such a view reacts on the whole prosecution case. In this circumstance of the case, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace but as of right because the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.…………………………….. (24)