"Functional Autonomy and Procedural Modernization: A Blueprint for Reforming the Subordinate Civil Judiciary of Bangladesh"

Abstract

This thesis critically examines the jurisdictional architecture and functional performance of the subordinate civil courts of Bangladesh, with a particular focus on the interplay between pecuniary, territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction, and the systemic challenges that undermine effective access to justice. The purpose of the study is to assess how jurisdictional clarity or the lack thereof affects judicial efficiency, caseload distribution, consistency in adjudication, and the overall credibility of the civil justice system. While existing scholarship discusses the broader problems of case backlog and judicial delay, a comprehensive doctrinal analysis of jurisdictional overlaps, misuse of procedural law, and the structural tensions between trial courts and specialized tribunals remains noticeably underexplored. This research seeks to fill that gap. Methodologically, the thesis adopts a doctrinal qualitative approach grounded in statutory interpretation, case law analysis, and scrutiny of judicial practice. It draws upon primary legal sources such as the Civil Courts Act, 1887 (as amended), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and a wide corpus of judicial decisions of the subordinate courts and the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Secondary sources including law commission reports, judicial reform literature, and empirical assessments by institutions such as Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB)support the analysis of functional challenges such as manpower shortages, resource constraints, and governance deficiencies. While doctrinal in nature, the study also integrates insights from administrative law, institutional design, and comparative judicial reform to illuminate the broader policy implications of jurisdictional clarity. The core research gap addressed lies in the intersection of jurisdictional rules and trial level functionality. Although pecuniary limits and court hierarchy are well established, little prior academic work interrogates how litigants and lawyers exploit ambiguities relating to valuation, forum selection, and ouster clauses creating procedural detours that overburden trial courts. Likewise, Bangladesh’s expanding network of specialized tribunals (e.g., Family Courts, Administrative Tribunals, Money Loan Courts) has generated parallel systems of civil adjudication, but their jurisdictional boundaries remain imprecise, giving rise to frequent conflicts between civil courts and tribunal forums. The absence of a unified jurisdictional framework has resulted in delays, conflicting judicial interpretations, and inconsistent remedies.