Small Causes Courts Act, 1877
Section 23
That the Plaintiff has a difficult case to sustain in this Small Causes Courts suit as it involves a question of title and for that matter the plaint of the aforesaid S. C. C. Court may be returned. Narayan Chandra Sarker vs Abdur Rahman (Mahmudul Amin Choudhury C. J) (Civil) IADC 197
Section 25
Where evidence has been duly placed before the trial court and it has decided the suit on merit the revisional court has no power to remand by shirking its duty particularly solely for the purpose of writing the judgment afresh. Hosna Ara Begum vs Montaj Ali (Mohammad Gholam Rabbani )(Civil) 2ADC 861
Section 25
Although the scope of exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court Act is wider than under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet before interfering with any finding of fact of the trial court under section 25 of the said Act the High Court Division is to come to find- ing that such finding of the trial Court suffers from any error of law.....(6) Md. Nurul Islam vs Md. Ali Hossain Miah ors (Mohammad Abdur Rouf JCivil) 2ADC 964
Section 25
The suit was filed are that premises in suit belonged to plaintiffs' predecessor Mir Baksha Miah and the said premises was let out to the defendants on November 14, 1960 at monthly rental basis. Kazi Md. Abdul Kuddus and another vs. Mst. Kaimon Bewa and oth- ers (Md. Ruhul Amin J)(Civil)4ADC 168
Section 25
Found that the postal money order was sent on 13.9.1991 for the second time in the name of the plaintiff no.2 i.e. obvi- ously one of the heirs of the deceased landlord. Thus we find force in the sub- mission of the learned Advocate for the appellants that there was sufficient materials on record to uphold the find- ing of the trial court that the defendants defaulted in the payment of rent.
The legal position is that where evidence has been duly placed before the trial court and it has decided the suit on merit the revisional court has no power to remand by shirking its duty particularly solely for the purpose of writing the judgment afresh. This appeal, there- fore, must succeed. Hosna Ara Begum &ors vs. Montaj Ali & ors (Mohammad Gholam Rabbani J) (Civil) 4ADC 286
Section 25
The petitioner as defaulter and that the suit premises is bonafide required by the plaintiffs for their own business and that the point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has already been considered by Courts below and decision given thereof inasmuch as the defendant No.3 the said owner of 1/6th share accepted the decree of the trial Court and did not proceed further. Aminur Rahman and another vs. Jalaluddin Ahmed and others (Mohammad Fazlul Karim JCivil) 4ADC 572
Section 25
The suit was field seeking ejectment of the monthly tenant i.e. the petitioner herein and for recovery of rent due till disposal of the suit. Md. Tobarok Hossain vs. Md. Fazlul Hoque (Md. Ruhul Amin CJ) (Civil) 5ADC 342
Section 25
Petitioner praying for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises alleging, inter alia, that the Plaintiff's father, Md. Yakub Ali Sarder, was the owner of the suit premises and the defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant therein and the said Md. Yakub Ali Sarder transferred the suit land by a registered deed of heba-bil-ewaj dated 06.09.1988 in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers. Md. Nasiruddin vs. Md. Mizanur Rahman (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 5ADC 789
Section 25- Plaintiff instituted S.C.C. Suit No.8 of 1994 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge and Small Causes Court, Khulna against Lal Mohammad-respondent herein, praying for a decree for ejecting him and for rent and mesne profit. After hearing the parties, upon considering the evidence and materials on record, the Senior Assistant Judge and Small Causes Court, Khulna by his judgment and decree dated 26.04.2000 dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No.3070 of 2000 under section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act before the High Court Division and obtained Rule, which upon hearing the parties was discharged.
The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant was a tenant under her predecessor. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, without however, any order as to costs. ...Begum Marium =VS= Zubaida @ Zubeda Khatun, [10 LM (AD) 11]
