Tuesday, October 24, 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

Impartiality and fairness stand for natural justice

(From previous issue) :21. It is clear that the Government respondent always treated the land as "Kha" Schedule land but when the Act No. 23 of 2011 came into

Management of Waqf estate

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction)Tariq ul Hakim J Md Faruque (M Faruque) JJudgment December 14th, 2016Abdullah Md Ehtesham  (Md) ...............Petitioner vs Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, People's Republic

Procedure for demanding unpaid VAT

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Zinat Ara JKazi Md Ejarul HaqueAkondo JGopal Biri Factory Limited ...............Petitioner vsCommissioner Customs, Excise & VAT Khulna  and others ............ RespondentsJudgmentMarch 6th, 2017Value

The court has authority to appoint receiver

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) M Enayetur Rahim J Shahidul Karim JArshad Hossen (Md) and another............. .................. .........Petitioners vs State and another ............    ......... Opposite Parties Judgment March

Impartiality and fairness stand for natural justice

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Rezaul Haque JMd Khurshid Alam Sarkar JSrijan Paul Chowdhury ......PetititionervsGovernment of the  People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by it Secretary, Ministry of

When ex-parte decree can be set aside ?

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) SM Emdadul Huque J Torab Ali and another Defendant-Respondent ............... Petitioners vsMadris Ali Saha and others..........     Opposite PartiesCode of Civil Procedure (V

Concept of strict liability offence

Appellate Division (Criminal) :Nazmun Ara Sultana JSyed Mahmud Hossain JMd Imman Ali JMd Anwarul Haque JIslami Bank Bangladesh Ltd.......PetitionervsFerdous Khan @ Alamgir and another.......RespondentsJudgmentFebruary 9th, 2014Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI

Determining competent authority under Section 31ka(3) of Act VIII of 2000

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) M Enayetur Rahim JJBM Hassan JMilad Hossain @ Milad Uddin (Md) ....... Accused-Appellant vsState........RespondentJudgmentDecember 5th, 2016Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Doman Ain (VIII of 2000) Sections

Fixing notice period under Negotiable Instrument Act 1881

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)Md Habibul Gani JMd Akram HossainChowdhury JMaloy     ............ ..........Accused-Petitioner vs Md Sekander Chockder @ Md Shahadat Hossain and another ................ ......................... Opposite-Parties Judgment

English language in legal fraternity-An increasing demand of global aspects

Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan :It is admittedly true enough that the influence of English Language in legal profession has got its limit crossed throughout the centuries in Bangladesh and