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, 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 judgment delivery. This assignment compares the relevant sections and evaluates the changes introduced.

Comparative Analysis between Civil Procedure Code 1908 and Civil Procedure Amendment Act 2025

The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2025 marks a significant development in Bangladesh's judicial reform initiatives, aiming to modernize, simplify, and expedite civil proceedings. This amendment reflects the evolving needs of society, incorporating digitalization, reducing procedural delays, and enhancing access to justice.

 

Objectives of the Amendment

1. To Ensure Speedy Justice: Streamlining timelines for civil suits.
2. To Promote Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Encouraging mediation and conciliation.
3. To Incorporate E-Court Procedures: Allowing digital case filing and virtual hearings.
4. 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 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 digitization.
• 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 judgments.
• Impact: Reduces backlog and long-pending cases in civil courts.

2. Mandatory Mediation

• Why: Encourages resolution without 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 given greater discretion to manage timelines.
• Impact: Smoother and more organized 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 judgments. 

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 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 are summoned manually and often delayed due to lack of systemisation.	A 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-examination 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 are accepted, speeding up the presentation of evidence.
Adjournments	No hard limit. Adjournments are granted frequently, leading to trial delays.	A maximum of 3 adjournments per party, with penalties for misuse.
Judgment Writing	Judgements could take months after the trial is over. Delays are common.	Mandatory delivery of judgement within 30 days after hearing ends.
Judgment Format	Verbose and often lengthy; no standardized format.	Standardised digital templates were introduced to speed up the process and improve clarity.
Technology Use	Entirely paper-based, court-centric.	E-courts, e-filing, and virtual hearings are 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.

 A transparent and time-bound judgement 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

1. 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.

 

2. 2025 Amendment Introduces Structural Reforms
• Enforces case disposal within 2 years, encouraging faster resolution.
• Introduces e-filing, virtual hearings, and digital witness handling.

 

3. 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.

 

4. Judgment Delivery is Now Time-Bound
• Under the amendment, judgements must be delivered within 30 days of the final hearing.
• Promotes transparency and public trust in justice.
5. Implementation is Uneven
• Rural courts and the lower judiciary still lack proper infrastructure.
• Legal professionals often resist change due to lack of training or digital literacy.
6. Mediation and ADR Are Strengthened
• Pre-trial mediation is mandatory, aiming to reduce court burden and encourage settlement.

Suggestions

1. Ensure Nationwide Infrastructure Development
• Government should equip all courts—urban and rural—with the necessary digital tools and internet access.

2. Training Programs for Legal Stakeholders
• Judges, lawyers, court staff, and litigants need extensive training on using digital tools and understanding procedural reforms.

3. Create Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
• Establish a case-tracking dashboard to monitor compliance with the 2-year timeline and ensure accountability.

4. Encourage ADR and Mediation Culture
• Promote legal awareness campaigns among the public and incentivise mediation for suitable cases.

5. Amendment Should Be Followed by Implementation Guidelines
• The Supreme Court or Ministry of Law should issue clear procedural rules and circulars for uniform implementation.

6. 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 judgement process—that aim to reduce delays and enhance public trust. For effective implementation, digital access, proper training, and consistent policy support are essential.