Comparative Analysis between Civil Procedure Code 1908 and Civil Procedure Amendment Act 2025
Introduction
The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is the cornerstone of civil justice in Bangladesh.
However, the system has long suffered from procedural delays, a backlog of cases,
and limited technological integration. To address these issues, the Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2025, introduced several critical reforms,
especially in the trial process, witness management, and judgement
delivery. This assignment compares the relevant sections and evaluates the
changes introduced.
The Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2025, marks a significant development in
Bangladesh's judicial reform initiatives, aiming to modernise, simplify, and
expedite civil proceedings. This amendment reflects the evolving needs of
society, incorporating digitalisation, reducing procedural delays, and
enhancing access to justice.
Objectives of the
Amendment
- To Ensure Speedy Justice: Streamlining timelines for
civil suits.
- To Promote Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR):
Encouraging mediation and conciliation.
- To Incorporate E-Court
Procedures:
Allowing digital case filing and virtual hearings.
- To Reduce Case Backlog: By introducing case
management tools and penalizing delays.
Key Features of the
2025 Amendment
1. Digital Civil
Case Management
- Online case filing (e-filing) made mandatory for
metropolitan courts.
- Introduction of video conferencing for
preliminary hearings and evidence recording.
2. Time-bound
Framework
- Disposal of civil suits within 2 years from the
date of institution.
- Strict deadlines for written statements, witness
lists, and evidence submission.
3. Mandatory
Pre-trial Mediation
- Compulsory mediation attempts before framing of
issues.
- Provision for certified mediators and
court-monitored mediation sessions.
4. Penalties for
Delaying Tactics
- Fines and cost imposition for parties causing
unnecessary adjournments.
- Judges are empowered to reject pleadings for
non-compliance with court orders.
5. Strengthening
Judicial Discretion
- Judges allowed more autonomy in managing cases
effectively.
- Use of summary procedures in appropriate cases to
ensure quick disposal.
Impact on the
Judicial System
- Reduced Case Backlog: By enforcing timelines and
enabling technology.
- Cost-effectiveness: Reduced travel and
documentation expenses through digitisation.
- Enhanced Accountability: Imposing penalties
encourages procedural discipline.
- Access to Justice: Technology ensures access
even in remote areas.
Challenges and
Concerns
- Technological Barriers: Infrastructure and digital
literacy gaps in rural courts.
- Training Needs: Judicial officers and court
staff need capacity building.
- Resistance to Change: Lawyers and litigants
accustomed to traditional methods may resist.
Advantages
1. Faster Disposal
of Civil Cases
- Why: Time limits for hearings and
judgements.
- Impact: Reduces backlog and
long-pending cases in civil courts.
2. Mandatory
Mediation
- Why: Encourages resolution without a full trial.
- Impact: Saves time and resources for
courts and litigants.
3. Introduction of
E-Courts and E-Filing
- Why: Digital tools for case
filing, notices, and virtual hearings.
- Impact: Improves access to justice,
especially for people in remote areas.
4. Discouragement of
Delaying Tactics
- Why: Fines and sanctions for
unnecessary delays.
- Impact: Ensures parties proceed in
good faith and avoid abuse of legal process.
5. Efficient Case
Management
- Why: Judges are given greater
discretion to manage timelines.
- Impact: Smoother and more organised
proceedings.
Disadvantages
1. Digital Divide
- Why: Not all litigants, especially
in rural or underprivileged areas, have access to internet or devices.
- Impact: Could limit access to justice
for some groups.
2. Lack of
Infrastructure
- Why: Many lower courts lack proper
technological setup.
- Impact: May delay implementation or
create inequality in service.
3. Need for Training
- Why: Judges, lawyers, and court
staff may not be fully trained in digital systems or new procedures.
- Impact: Errors or delays due to
unfamiliarity with new rules.
4. Risk of
Overburdening Judges
- Why: Stricter timelines might
pressure judges to rush proceedings.
- Impact: Potential compromise in
quality of judgements.
5. Resistance to
Change
- Why: Legal practitioners used to
traditional procedures may resist reforms.
- Impact: Slows down the practical
adoption of amendments.
Comparative Analysis
Table
Aspect |
CPC, 1908 (Original Law) |
CPC (Amendment) 2025 |
Trial Procedure |
Traditional, open court hearings
with multiple adjournments. Case timelines are undefined. |
Time-bound trials—All civil suits
to be disposed of within 2 years. Strict adjournment rules. |
Case Management |
No structured pre-trial procedure. Delays are common in framing issues. |
Mandatory pre-trial hearings and
case scheduling to streamline proceedings. |
Witness Summoning |
Witnesses summoned manually, and
often delayed due to lack of systemization. |
The digital witness management system was introduced. Parties must
submit witness lists early. |
Witness Recording |
Recorded only in physical court,
often leading to long delays due to absence or cross-exam extensions. |
Video-recorded witness depositions permitted through video
conferencing. Faster cross-examination. |
Evidentiary Rules |
Documents submitted in original
form; limited digital acceptance. |
E-documents and digital exhibits
accepted, speeding up presentation of evidence. |
Adjournments |
No hard limit. Adjournments granted
frequently, leading to trial delays. |
Maximum 3 adjournments per party, with penalties for misuse. |
Judgment Writing |
Judgments could take months after
the trial is over. Delays common. |
Mandatory delivery of judgment within
30 days after hearing ends. |
Judgment Format |
Verbose and often lengthy; no
standardized format. |
Standardized digital templates introduced to speed up the process
and improve clarity. |
Technology Use |
Entirely paper-based, court-centric. |
E-courts, e-filing, and virtual
hearings implemented, at least in metropolitan areas. |
Key
Improvement of this Amendment
Faster trial process through
strict timelines and fewer adjournments.
Technology-driven witness
handling, reducing delays caused by absentee witnesses.
Transparent and time-bound
judgment system ensures confidence in civil justice.
Encourages out-of-court
settlements via mandatory pre-trial mediation.
Limitation
and Challenges
- Rural
courts may lack technology infrastructure to implement changes
effectively.
- Lawyers
and litigants may resist digital systems due to lack of awareness or
training.
- Courts
may face workload pressure to meet the strict 2-year disposal rule.
- Implementation
requires ongoing monitoring and reform coordination.
Findings
- The 1908 CPC is Procedurally
Outdated
- Lacks defined timelines,
resulting in long trial delays and backlog.
- Heavy dependence on manual
paperwork, which is slow and inefficient.
- 2025 Amendment Introduces
Structural Reforms
- Enforces case disposal
within 2 years, encouraging faster resolution.
- Introduces e-filing,
virtual hearings, and digital witness handling.
- Witness Handling is More
Efficient in the Amendment
- Early submission of witness
lists and allowance of video testimonies increase efficiency.
- Reduces witness absenteeism
and trial disruptions.
- Judgment Delivery is Now
Time-Bound
- Under the amendment,
judgments must be delivered within 30 days of final hearing.
- Promotes transparency and public
trust in justice.
- Implementation is Uneven
- Rural courts and lower
judiciary
still lack proper infrastructure.
- Legal professionals often resist change due to
lack of training or digital literacy.
- Mediation and ADR Are
Strengthened
- Pre-trial mediation is
mandatory, aiming to reduce court burden and encourage settlement.
Suggestions
- Ensure Nationwide
Infrastructure Development
- Government should equip
all courts—urban and rural—with the necessary digital tools and
internet access.
- Training Programs for Legal
Stakeholders
- Judges, lawyers, court staff,
and litigants need extensive training on using digital tools and
understanding procedural reforms.
- Create Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems
- Establish a case-tracking
dashboard to monitor compliance with the 2-year timeline and ensure
accountability.
- Encourage ADR and Mediation
Culture
- Promote legal awareness
campaigns among the public and incentivize mediation for suitable
cases.
- Amendment Should Be Followed
by Implementation Guidelines
- Supreme Court or Ministry of
Law should issue clear procedural rules and circulars for uniform
implementation.
- Feedback Mechanism for Court
Users
- Create a user-friendly
grievance and feedback platform for litigants to report delays or
inefficiencies.
Conclusion
The 2025 amendment to the Code of
Civil Procedure is a progressive step toward a faster and more efficient civil
justice system in Bangladesh. It is crucial, however, that adequate
infrastructure, training, and awareness accompany the legal changes to ensure
their success and sustainability.
While the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 laid the foundation of civil justice, it has become
outdated in addressing modern case volume and efficiency demands. The 2025
Amendment brings critical, much-needed changes—especially in the trial
system, witness handling, and judgment process—that aim to reduce delays
and enhance public trust. For effective implementation, digital access, proper
training, and consistent policy support are essential.
References
- The
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2025 – Ministry of Law, Justice
and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Bangladesh.
2. Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Government of Bangladesh
- Bangladesh
Law Commission Reports.
- UNDP
Judicial Reform Initiatives in Bangladesh.
- Relevant
Journal Articles and Newspaper Reports.
6. Bangladesh
Supreme Court Circulars on Civil Case Reform
7. Law
Commission Reports on Civil Justice
8. UNDP
Reports on Judicial Digitalization in Bangladesh
No comments