Higher Court Orders Must Be Implemented According to Their True Meaning; No Arbitrary Interpretation Permitted: High Court
 |
| Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
In Civil Revision No. 6619 of 2023, Justice Md. Ali Reza delivered the judgment on 1 September 2026. The case was Aziz Al Kaiser vs. Ms. Tabassum Kaiser and others. The full judgment was published on the Supreme Court website on 9 September 2026. The case is also recorded in the Supreme Court’s cause lists.
According to the case record, the plaintiff, Aziz Al Kaiser, instituted Title Suit No. 899 of 2023 before the 1st Joint District Judge’s Court, Dhaka. In the suit, he claimed that Defendant No. 1 had not purchased certain shares of The City Bank Limited and the dividends derived from those shares with her own funds. According to the plaintiff, between 1993 and 2002, the shares came to be held in Defendant No. 1’s name through transfers from him and other means, while he had paid the consideration for the shares. He also sought a declaration that Defendant No. 1 had no title or right over the said shares and the dividends arising from them.
On the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the trial court fixed 11 January 2024 for hearing the application. Subsequently, on 19 November 2023, the plaintiff filed another application. Being aggrieved by the order, he approached the High Court by way of revision.
On 6 December 2023, the High Court issued an interim injunction restraining the transfer or sale of the concerned shares and imposed restrictions concerning the cash dividends relating to those shares held in a particular bank account. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 82 of 2024 before the Appellate Division. On 14 January 2024, the Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division modified the High Court’s order and lifted the restriction in respect of the cash dividends received by Defendant No. 1. Subsequently, on 29 April 2024, the Full Bench of the Appellate Division continued the said modified order until disposal of the Rule.
The High Court observed in its judgment that the modified order dated 14 January 2024 passed by the Appellate Division did not restrain Defendant No. 1 from receiving the accrued cash dividends from the concerned shares. Rather, by its order dated 29 April 2024, the Appellate Division continued the modified order until disposal of the Rule. Accordingly, Defendant No. 1 was entitled to receive the relevant cash dividends from 14 January 2024 until disposal of the Rule.
The Court further observed that, in the interest of the administration of justice, every order of a higher court must be complied with according to its true meaning and effect. Compliance with a judicial order is not a matter of discretion; it is an essential component of the rule of law. Where an order permits a particular course of action, it cannot be interpreted in a manner that produces an opposite result.
The High Court also emphasized that an interlocutory application, particularly an application for temporary injunction, is generally urgent in nature. Unnecessary delay in disposing of such applications may cause avoidable prejudice to the parties and, in some cases, may render the proceedings in the main suit infructuous. In this regard, the Court referred to Article 20 of the Manual of Practical Instructions for the Conduct of Civil Cases.
The Court directed The City Bank Limited and the concerned authorities to prepare a complete statement of the total cash dividends payable to Defendant No. 1 from 14 January 2024 until the date of the judgment. The statement must separately indicate how much had already been paid and how much remained outstanding. The Court further directed that the remaining payable dividends be released without unnecessary obstruction, harassment, or procedural formalities. An affidavit-in-compliance in this regard was directed to be filed before the Registrar General within 30 working days.
The High Court also directed the 1st Joint District Judge, Dhaka, to dispose of the application for temporary injunction filed on 12 November 2023 within 10 working days from receipt of a copy of the judgment. The trial court was directed to decide the application independently and in accordance with law and to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
With these observations and directions, the High Court disposed of the Rule. There was no order as to costs.
BD Law Post/Masum
