High Court Division Rules, 1973
Rule 3(d)- The High Court Division observed that a departmental proceedings was initiated against the respondent which has been taken without approval of the G.A. committee, and the same was a mandatory provision of law and that the Chief Justice without taking the matter to the G.A. Committee had accorded the approval. On perusal of the record the High Court Division noticed that there was an endorsement at the bottom of the note- sheet with a note of the Chief Justice 'yes' and this proved that the Chief Justice accorded the approval violating rule 3(d) of the High Court Division Rules. This court perused the record and found that this observation was correct but that itself is not a ground for interference. It should be borne in mind that in urgent matters, sometimes the Chief Justice gives approval in respect of some proposals without placing the matter before the G.A. committee, because the calling such meeting takes time and in urgent matters the Chief Justice accords permission subject to the approval of the committee later on. In this case inadvertently the matter has not been placed before the G.A. Committee. In order to avoid more harm to the judiciary, the Chief Justice takes such decision. The Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary is respected by the Judges and his opinion with regard to the superintendence and control over the lower judiciary has primacy and is being honoured by the Judges of the committee. This is a practice being followed by this Court and non-approval of the decision of the Chief Justice was merely an irregularity and not an illegality and this will not vitiate the decision. .....Government of Bangladesh VS= Sontosh Kumar Shaha, [4 LM (AD) 143]
High Court Division Jurisdiction- We note also that item No. I of the list for Mr. Justice Md. Rezaul Hasan for that day is Summary Suit No.02/2012 for appearance of parties. The petitioner involved in that suit is none other than Ansarul Haque and the suit is against Manager, Agrani Bank. Be that as it may, the High Court Division did not have jurisdiction allocated to it to hear such summary suits.
We find merit in the appeal, which is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs. The impugned order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. The application for return of plaint is allowed. The plaintiff, if so advised, may file the suit before any court competent to hear the matter in accordance with law. ... Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd. -VS- Bengal Techno Leather Ltd., [10 LM (AD) 41]
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court Division- We find that the trial Court has given very a elaborate judgement discussing the evidence and materials on record, and came to a finding based on those evidence and materials. The High Court Division in its revisional jurisdiction could only reverse those findings by specific reference to evidence and materials, which were not considered or were misread by the trial Court, which would have materially affected the decision had they been considered. We find that the trial Court and appellate Court have not misread any evidence nor left any material evidence out of consideration. In our opinion the decision of the High Court Division is not in accordance with the law and accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgement and order of the High Court Division is set aside...... Younus Mia(Md.) =VS= Illias Ali Chowdhury, [5 LM (AD) 7]
Revisional jurisdiction before the High Court Division against the order of the District Judge On this score since the revisional application lies against the final order of the District Judge under a special law, the respondents herein correctly invoked revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Division against the order of the District Judge passed in appeal preferred against an order of eviction by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the prayer of the Waqf Administrator. Hence on the question as to whether revision is maintainable we hold the same in the affirmative. ..... Alhaj Dr. Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani VS Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury, [5 LM (AD) 85]
Chapter VII, rule 1-Since the question already gave rise to conflicting decisions the matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench as per Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 so that the issue may be settled along with other related issues raised by the petitioner. Hon'ble Chief Justice in his turn was pleased to constitute this Bench for the purpose. Anjuara Khanam @ Anju vs State (Full Bench), 68 DLR 466
Chapter IVA rule 6(6)- The validity period of application for hearing of the same has already been expired. Application is rejected summarily. Khaza Tareq vs State, 70 DLR 195
Chapter XIA Rule 10-Rule 10 has empowered the High Court Division, to issue Rule Nisi treating any report published in a newspaper or other media or a letter signed by any person with his address and sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice or any other Judge or the Court or Registrar as an application within the meaning of article 102 of the Constitution, if it is satisfied that a public wrong of grave nature has occurred or is occurring or is going to occur. State vs Executive Magistrate Md Rafiqul Islam (Crimi) 69 DLR 18
