Saturday, April 21, 2018 | ePaper

The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree

  • Print
Appellate Division  :
(Civil)
Surendra Kumar Sinha J     
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
Sheikh Sekander Ali and others .......Petitioner
vs
Agrani Bank Limited and others ... ........ Respondents
Judgment
April 13th, 2015.
Code of Civil Procedure (v of 1908)
Section 2(2)
Decree-The executing court cannot go beyond the decree. The decree was passed against the writ-respondent also and therefore, the executing court had no jurisdiction to strike out their names from the execution case. .. .... (5)
Abdul Motin Khashru, Senior Advocate with SN Goswami, instructed by Mahbubur Rahman, on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Nahid Sultana, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents.
Judgment
Nazmun Ara Sultana J: This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-6-2014 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 560 of 2014 making the Rule absolute.
2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this civil petition for leave to appeal, in short, are that the writ-respondent No. 6 M/s Commissioner Apparels Limited had availed credit facilities from the writ-petitioner-Agrani Bank Limited, but ultimately failed to repay the said loan amount as per stipulations and consequently the writ-petitioner Bank instituted Artha Rin Suit No. 4 of 2008 before the Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka for realization of outstanding loan amount of Taka 2,11,36,193.25. In that suit the present writ-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 also were impleaded as defendant Nos. 7 to 10 and the decree was passed against the also. The defendant Nos. 7 to 10 though prayed before the Artha Rin Adalat for striking out their names from the plaint, but the Adalat, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, rejected those prayers holding that they were necessary parties and were also responsible for repayment of loan. However, the said Artha Rin Suit was decreed on contest against the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant Nos. 7 and 8 and ex-parte against the rest.
Since the judgment-debtors did not pay the decreetal amount the decree holder bank filed Artha Execution Case No. 66 of 2012 for realization of the decreetal amount.
In that execution case the present writ-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed applications for striking out their names from the execution case and the executing court by the orders dated 15-11-2012 and 24-7-2013 allowed those applications striking out the names of those respondents from that execution case.
3. Being aggrieved by these orders the decree holder Agrani Bank preferred the above mentioned Writ Petition No. 560 of 2014 and obtained Rule.
A Division Bench of the High Court Division, after hearing both the parties, made that Rule absolute by the impugned judgment and order.
The High Court Division set aside the impugned orders striking out the names of the writ-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from the execution case holding those orders illegal.
The High Court Division made observations to the effect that where the trial court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances and legal aspects found these writ-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 necessary parties in that Artha Rin Suit and therefore, rejected their prayer for striking out their names from the plaint and also decreed the suit against them and the executing court committed illegality and acted beyond its jurisdiction in striking out the names of these Writ-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from the execution case.
4. Mr Abdul Motin Khashru, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the leave-petitioners could not assail the above observations and findings of the High Court Division.
5. The above observation and findings, of the High Court Division is quite correct.
The executing court cannot go beyond the decree. The decree was passed against the writ-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 also and, therefore, the executing court had no jurisdiction to strike out their names from the execution case.
Evidently, there is no merit in this Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal and hence it is dismissed.

More News For this Category

Hindu Marriage Dissolution Act needed

Zahid Ahammad Hero :Hindu marriage is treated as a sacrament, or a sanskara, Under Hindu shastra or law, the concept of marriage is more of a religious than secular

Power of absorption is not absolutely discretionary

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Mamnoon Rahman J Shahidul Karim J Monirul Islam (Md) and others ... Petitioners  (in writ petition No. 3451 of  2010) vs Bangladesh Jute

Discrimination in paying financial benefits illegal

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Ashfaqul Islam J Ashish Ranjan Das J Abdur Rahman and others ..........Petitioners     vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and

Tender age is also a factor of consideration

High Court Division(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Md Habibul Gani J Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury J Tanjila Begum ............. ........ Convict-Appellant vsState...........Respondent* Judgment September 8th, 2016 Code of Criminal Procedure (V

Demand for encashment of Bank Guarantee cannot be injuncted

(From previous issue) :Therefore such breach of contract will automatically give rise to a claim for damages by the respondents and since the respondents suffered loss and damages due

Demand for encashment of Bank Guarantee cannot be injuncted

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Tariq ul Hakim J Md Faruque (M  Faruque) JJudgment August 23rd, 2016 Akram Hossain................Petitioner in all the Writ Petitioner VsBangladesh Rural Electrification Board,

Bail in an explosive substance case

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul Karim J SM Zakir Hossain J Shagor Prodhan ....... ....................Accused-Appellant vs State ..... Respondent Judgment November 16th, 2016     Explosive

'Youtuka' means gifts made before and also after nuptial fire

Appellate Division (Civil) Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain J Hasan Foez Siddique J Mirza Hussain Haider J Abdur Rahim Molla ...................... Appellant (In CA Nos. 325 &

Investigation by an ASI does not per se become without jurisdiction

High Court Division  :(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Bhabani PrasadSingha J SM Mozibur Rahman J Ziauddin Ahmed ..... .... Accused -PetitionervsState......................................Opposite-PartyJudgment September 10th, 2015.  Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section

Interest can't be reduced or waived by the court of law

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Mamnoon Rahman  J Md Abu Zafor Siddique JSonali Bank ....................................Appellant vs Md Lutfor Rahman and others .......................... RespondentsJudgment February 9th, 2012 Artha Rin