Solution of Questions of High Court Permission Exam 2025 (Ques -1, Group-A Civil)

 Ques-1:

🧾 FACTS IN SHORT

Title Suit No. 5 of 2015: Defendant ‘X’ (then plaintiff) filed the suit over ‘Ka’ scheduled land, which was decreed ex parte against ‘A’.

Misc. Case No. 9 of 2016 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by ‘A’ — disallowed → confirmed up to Appellate Division.

Title Suit No. 20 of 2025: ‘A’ (now plaintiff) again sues regarding ‘Ga’ schedule land (includes earlier ‘Ka’ land), seeking setting aside of the previous decree and other reliefs.

Defendant ‘X’ applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (rejection of plaint) on the ground of res judicata (Section 11 CPC) — rejected by trial court.

Now, Defendant ‘X’ seeks legal remedy against the rejection order.

⚖️ LEGAL ISSUE

Whether the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (for rejection of plaint) is appealable under Section 96/104/Order 43 CPC, or revisable under Section 115 CPC?

🔍 LEGAL POSITION

1. Nature of the Order

The order disallowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 does not amount to a “decree” (since the plaint is not rejected).

It is an interlocutory order, not conclusively determining the rights of parties.

Hence, it is not appealable under Section 96 (regular appeal) or Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code.

2. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1?

Order 43 Rule 1(a) provides appeal only when the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11.

> Order 43 Rule 1(a): An appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint, or under Rule 11 of Order VII rejecting a plaint.

➡️ Therefore, if the plaint is rejected, appeal lies.

➡️ But if the application for rejection is disallowed, no appeal lies.

3. Revision under Section 115 CPC

Since the order:

is not appealable,

and has been made by a court subordinate to the High Court Division,

and the court has exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity (by ignoring Section 11 res judicata bar),

the proper remedy is a Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.J

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (Bangladesh)

1. Abdul Jalil vs. Abdur Rahim, 46 DLR (AD) 67

👉 Held: When a court rejects an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, such an order is not appealable; remedy lies in revision under Section 115 CPC.

2. Nurul Islam vs. Abdul Kader, 52 DLR (HCD) 340

👉 Held: Refusal to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is revisable, not appealable.

3. Siddique Ahmed vs. Azizur Rahman, 59 DLR (HCD) 93

👉 Held: If the plaint itself is barred by res judicata, rejection should follow; disallowing such prayer may be interfered with under Section 115 CPC.

🧭 ADVICE TO DEFENDANT ‘X’

Remedy:

File a Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC before the High Court Division, challenging the order of the 5th Joint District Judge, Dhaka disallowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

🧩 GROUNDS FOR REVISION

1. Error of Jurisdiction:

The trial court failed to apply Section 11 CPC (res judicata) though the earlier ex parte decree attained finality up to the Appellate Division.

2. Illegality:

The court wrongly assumed jurisdiction over a matter already adjudicated.

3. Material Irregularity:

The trial court ignored that the ‘Ga’ scheduled land includes the ‘Ka’ land, and that the relief sought effectively challenges a final decree, which is impermissible.

🧾 PRAYER IN REVISION (Draft Summary)

> The petitioner, Defendant ‘X’, therefore prays that the Hon’ble High Court Division be pleased to:

1. Set aside the impugned order dated [insert date] passed by the 5th Joint District Judge, Dhaka, in Title Suit No. 20 of 2025;

2. Reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as being barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC;

3. Pass such other or further order as may be deemed fit and proper.

🧠 CONCLUSION

Question Answer

Remedy Civil Revision

Relevant Law Section 115 CPC

Why The order disallowing rejection of plaint is not appealable (Order 43 Rule 1(a) applies only when plaint is rejected); hence, revision lies.

Grounds Res judicata, finality of previous decree, and trial court’s material irregularity.