Search Options
Judgment Search By Title
Liu Ying Ping Vs. Leon Fang Ai, 1984, 13 CLC (AD)
Md. Motahar Hossain Khan Vs. Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation, 1984, 13 CLC (AD)
M/s. M. M. Ispahani Vs. Sonali Bank and others, 1983, 12 CLC (AD)
Ram Chandra Das & others Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman & another, 1984, 13 CLC (AD)
Bangladesh Vs. Jalaluddin Ahmed, 1985, 14 CLC (AD)
Nurul Islam Vs. Md. Abdur Rashid & others, 1984, 13 CLC (AD)
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), Order XVIII, rule 17
Discretionary power under Order XVIII, rule 17 to recall a witness must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.
Discretionary power under Order XIIX rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall have to be exercised subject to law of Evidence for the time being in force. Discretionary power of the Court cannot be exercised for helping the litigant who is not vigilant and certainly such power cannot be exercised for giving undue advantage to a party .........(4)
Exercise of discretion for recalling the plaintiff after 2½ years was irregular exercise of power and such order must be set aside. The Appeal is allowed and judgment and order of the High Court Division are set aside………(6)Jonab Ali Sarder & others Vs. Taser Ali Fakir & another, 1985, 14 CLC (AD)
Maqbul Hossain & others Vs. Bangladesh Milk Producers’ Co-Operative Union Ltd., 1985, 14 CLC (AD)
Bangladesh Railway Vs. M/s. Chartering and Shipbroking Corporation, 1985, 14 CLC (AD)
Lal Miah alias Lalu Vs. The State, 1989, 18 CLC (AD)
Md. Naimuddin Sarder Vs. Md. Abdul Kalam, 1989, 18 CLC (AD)
Haroon Moten Vs. Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. & others, 1989, 18 CLC (AD)
Mohammad Meah Vs. Pubali Bank & others, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
The Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872), section 170
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38, rule 5
From the facts and circumstances of the case I have got no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff knew about the defendant's transaction with the Bank and that the vessel with all its materials was pledged to the Bank. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Bank ought to have proceeded against the defendant's other securities has got no substance. Under the provisions of section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872 as well as under the terms of the transactions the defendants entered into with the Bank, the latter is free to follow any of the ways legally available to it for realisation of its dues. The Court will refrain from making any officious direction that the Bank should follow a particular security or collateral. High Court Division’s order of vacating attachment is upheld…………………….(36 & 37)
Bangladesh Sericulture Board & another Vs. Md. Fazlur Rahman Akunjee & another, 1989, 18 CLC (AD)
Shambhu Nath Saha Vs. Alfazuddin Ahmed & others, 1989, 18 CLC (AD)
Sheikh Abdus Sabur Vs. Returning Officer, District Education Officer-in-Charge, Gopalganj & others, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Abdus Sattar and others Vs. International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd., 1999, 28 CLC (HCD)
Gopal Chandra Shah Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Sunamganj & another, 1989, 18 CLC (AD)
Executive Engineer, Public Health, Barisal Division Vs. Mohammad Ali & ors, 1989, 18 CLC (AD)