Friday, April 28, 2017 | 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

Contract to be executed within 6 months

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Quazi Reza-ul     Hoque JJN Deb Choudhury JAbdul Khaleque..............Appellant vs Government of Bangladesh represented by Deputy Commissioner and anothers ................. RespondentsJudgment June 5th, 2016

Title and partition suit of undivided jote should go together

Appellate Division (Civil)  :Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain JHasan Foez Siddique JMirza Hussain Haider JJahangir Alam (Md) and others ... Appellants vsSabdir Ahmed and others...............RespondentsJudgmentDecember 7th, 2016Specific

Market value on date of acquisition be the basis of compensation of land

(From previous issue) :14. So he submitted that the learned Additional District Judge without considering the material facts, the evidence and the documents produced by the parties arbitrarily passed

Allowing witness to correct his deposition shall make cross-examination a mockery

Appellate Division :(Civil) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JNazmun Ara Sultana JMd Imman Ali JMd Nizamul Huq J Judgment July 28th, 2016 Sharifullah (Md) and anothers .... Petitioner vsMd Tafazzal

Market value on date of acquisition be the basis of compensation of land

High Court Division (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Farid Ahmed J Md JahangirHossain JMozlema Khatun and others-Appellants  (In First Miscellaneous Appeal  No. 262 of 2001) vs Government of Bangladesh and another

Levy customs duty as per tariff value on the date of presentation of Bill of Entry

Appellate Division (Civil) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JNazmun Ara Sultana JMd Imman Ali JMd Nizamul Huq J    JudgmentMarch 1st, 2016Moshtaq (Md) and others     . ........ Appellants vsCollector of

Counting time for pre-emption starts from date of knowledge

Appellate Division (Civil) Nazmun Ara Sultana JSyed MahmudHossain JJudgmentApril 28th, 2014Abu Hanif Hawlader..........Petitioner vsMohammad Amanat Ullah Hawlader and others .. RespondentsState Acquisition & Tenancy Act (28 of 1951) Section 96

Employees in service enjoy right to preference for absorption

High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tariq-ul Hakim JMd Faruque JJudgmentJune 14th, 2016Shahidul Islam (Md) and Others-Petitioners vs Bangladesh, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Bangladesh and

The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree

Appellate Division  :(Civil) Surendra Kumar Sinha J     Nazmun Ara Sultana JSyed Mahmud Hossain JHasan Foez Siddique JSheikh Sekander Ali and others .......Petitioner vsAgrani Bank Limited and others ... ........

Land not shown in schedule cannot be sold in auction

High Court Division (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Md Abdul Hafiz J SM MoziburRahman JAminul Islam (Md).........Judgment-Debtor-Petitioner         vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation, Dhaka.......Decree-Holder-Opposite Party Judgment May 12th, 2015 Code