Law Minister Moudud Ahmed yesterday announced that the amendment needed further corrections before it could be given effect.

The amended CPC was supposed to come into force from October 1.

The decision was made in consultation with the prime minister following a meeting yesterday of Moudud, Communications Minister Nazmul Huda and Post and Telecommunications Minister Aminul Haq with pro-government lawyers at the secretariat.

The government plans to reduce the fines fixed in the amendment.

The president will promulgate an ordinance Tuesday, stating that the amendment will be effective as per a schedule fixed by a government gazette notification to be issued later.

The cabinet will finalise the ordinance tomorrow.

"Before issuing the gazette notification, we will hold roundtables and seek opinions and suggestions of legal experts. On the basis of their feedback, we will change the amended CPC," said Moudud at a press briefing at his Gulshan residence last night.

If the government decides to bring changes to the amendment, the CPC will have to be tabled in parliament once again. The amendment was passed by parliament on July 19.

Agitating lawyers earlier declared the law minister, himself a lawyer, 'unwanted' in Bar associations and boycotted courts across the country for a day. Despite the latest government move, they have decided to go ahead with the court boycott programme on October 1 to press for their six-point demand including total repeal of the amendment.

Lawyers are opposed to Section 35 (a) of the amended CPC which provides for the court to penalise a litigant with a fine between Tk 10,000 and Tk 1 lakh for harassment if they fail to prove the allegations after filing a case.

They say anyone can lose a case due to inadequate evidence and other technical reasons, but this cannot be the basis for terming any case as false. In every case, there is a winner and a loser and that has nothing to do with falsification or harassment.

Besides, the amendment does not have any guideline on how the fines should be slapped and leaves it entirely to the discretion of the judge. This creates a scope for abuse of the provision for fine and exchange of bribes over fixing the fine, as well.

The amendment also stipulates that before imposing any injunction on development works of a government institution, the court must first hear the government's version. In case of dealing with private citizens or organisations, the court must hear both parties before imposing the injunction.

Moreover, if the verdict of the case goes against the party that got the injunction order, that party will be liable to pay up to Tk 50,000 as demurrage.

Lawyers argue that this amendment will delay justice. The hearing of such a case cannot begin before the government sends the necessary documents to its lawyers. And this will also enable the powerful parties to get the upper hand.

For instance, if the injunction is on land encroachment, the process will help the encroacher to take possession of the land beforehand and appear before the court with necessary preparations before the injunction comes into effect.

Section 35 (b) of the amendment dictates that if any party fails to file petition or objection within a stipulated date, that party will have to deposit between Tk 1,000 and Tk 5,000 before the court accepts the petition.

Besides, the court can direct the parties to deposit Tk 2,000 to Tk 10,000 if it feels that the hearing is being delayed by filing an interim petition.

If anyone prays for adjournment of a case more than three times, he/she has to deposit Tk 6,000.

Lawyers object to this, saying it will allow one party to adjourn the case to the government's benefit and affect the other.