Thursday, July 19, 2018 | ePaper

Law allows the court to pass order in ‘summary manner'

  • Print
High Court Division  :
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
Sheikh Abdul Awal J
Shahidul Karim J
BASIC Bank Ltd     . Plaintiff-Appellant
vs
Sarwar Enterprise and others ......................
Defendant-Respondents
Judgment
June 7th, 2016
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of  2003)
Section 13(3)
If the subject matter of the plaint is admitted in the written statement and if the plaintiff filed an application praying for passing judgment under Section 13(3) of the Ain, and then the Adalat shall dispose of the suit by its judgment or order under the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Ain, in a summary manner without waiting for deciding other issues raised by the parties in the suit.
The Ain, is a special law, the Adalat has been given power to dispose of the ease in a summary manner subject to file an application by the plaintiff to dispose of the suit as per provision of Section 13(3) of the Ain. . ..... (13)
Shamim Khaled Ahmed with Md Mamunur Rashid.
Advocates-For the Appellant.
Jamir Uddin Sircar with Md Kamal Hossain.
Advocates-For the Respondent Nos. 1-3.
Judgment
Sheikh Abdul Awal J : This First Appeal at the instance of BASIC Bank Ltd. is' directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-7-2011 (decree signed on 31-7-2011) passed by the Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra in Artha Rin Suit No.02 of 2011 disposing the suit under the provision of Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
2. Material facts of the case, briefly, are that Basic Bank Limited, Bogra Branch as plaintiff instituted a suit being Artha Rin Suit No.2 of 2011 in the Court of Artha Rin Adala, Bogra against the defendant-respondents on the averments that the defendant-M/s Sarwar Enterprise earned reputation in the course of business transaction with the plaintiff-bank and thereupon, on the prayer of the defendant M/s Sarwar Enterprise the plaintiff bank sanctioned Taka 50 Lac CC (Huypo) in favour of the defendant, M/s Sarwar Enterprise which was subsequently enhanced up to 75 Lac. The defendant M/s Sarwar Enterprise also opened LC on 15-4-2008 amounting to U$ 4,56,400 and thereafter, made several business transaction with the plaintiff-bank, although finally the defendant-respondent, M/s Sarwar Enterprise did not come forward to adjust the loan facilities as per terms of the loan sanctioned letters. Thus, the plaintiff bank made several request over telephone to the defendant- respondent M/s Sarwar Enterprise to adjust the loan amount but the defendant-respondent M/s Sarwar Enterprise failed to adjust, the same and thereafter, the plaintiff bank sent legal notice through their Advocate Mr MA Taher on 10-10-2010 to the defendant M/s Sarwar Enterprise for payment of Taka 4,87,61,716.16 as on 30-9-2010 giving 15 days time but the defendant M/s Sarwar Enterprise did not turn to pay the loan amount and hence, the suit for realisation of Taka 5,09,82,945.10 along with interest.
3. The defendant M/s Sarwar Enterprise entered appearance in the' suit and filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint contending, inter-alia, that the suit is not maintainable in its present form and manner as there was no cause of action for the suit and the defendant-Mis Sarwar Enterprise did not mortgage any property in favour of the plaintiff bank for any kind of loan facility.
4. The learned Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for determination:-
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?
(ii) Whether the defendant took loan from the plaintiff bank?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree, as prayed for?
5. The Adalat, thereafter, by its otder No.9 dated 10-7-2011 fixed the next date on 20-7-2011 for disposal of the suit under the provision of Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and on that date the Artha Rin Adalat by the impugned judgment and decree dated 20-7-2011 disposed of the suit under Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 20-7- 2011 the plaintiff-appellant-bank preferred the instant appeal.
7. Mr Shamim Khaled Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff bank-appellant at the very outset upon referring to the provision of Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 submits that it is mandatory for filing an application by the plaintiff of an Artha Rin suit praying for passing judgment under Section 13(3) of the Ain, 2003 if the claim of the plaintiff-bank is admitted by the defendant in his written statement whereas in this case no such application was filed by the plaintiff-appellant bank and no evidence oral or documentary was adduced by the respective parties although the learned judge of the Artha Rin Adalat without applying its judicial mind into the facts and circumstance of the case and law bearing on the subject most illegally by the impugned judgment and decree dated 20-7-2011 disposed of the suit under the provision of section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and as such, the same is liable to be set-aside. Finally, Mr Shamim Khaled Ahmed upon referring an application for sending back the suit on remand to the Artha Rin Adalat for proper and complete adjudication dated 1-6-2016 submits that since in this suit admittedly no application was tiled by the plaintiff bank as per provision of Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain and no evidence was adduced either oral and documentary by the respective parties the case may be sent on remand to the trial Court for proper adjudication on taking evidence both oral and documentary.
8. Mr Jamir Uddin Sircar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree which was according to him just, correct and proper.
9. We have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and other materials on record.
10. On scrutiny of the record, it appears that the Basic Bank Ltd. Bogra Branch as plaintiff filed a suit being Artha Rin Suit No.02 of 2011 in the Court of Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra against the defendant-respondents seeking the following reliefs : --
১৪(ক) অতএব, মাননীয় আদালত উপরোক্ত অব¯'াধীনে গত ২৬-১-২০১১ইং তারিখ পর্যন্ত সময়ের বাদী ব্যাংকের অনুকূলে বিবাদী পক্ষের বিরুদ্ধে সুদাসলে খরচাসহ অনাদায়ী পাওনাকৃত টাকা ৫,০৯,৮২,৯৪৫/১০ কথায় টাকা পাঁচ কোটি লয় লক্ষ বিরাশি হাজার নয়শত পঁয়তাল্লিশ এবং পয়সা দশ) মাত্র এবং তৎসংগে মামলা খরচাসহ আদায় কালতক ৫০(২) ধারা মতে ডিক্রি দিতে মাননীয় আদালতের সদয় মর্জি হয়।
(খ) মাননীয় আদালতের ডিক্রি প্রদত্ত সময়ের মধ্যে বিবাদীগণ বাদী ব্যাংকের পাওনা পরিশোধ না করলে বিবাদীর বন্দকী স্থাবর ও অস্থাবর সম্পত্তি নিলাম বিক্রয় সহ আদালতযোগে দখল পায় এবং তা বিক্রয়ে পাওনা আদায়ের আদেশ হয়।
(গ) মাননীয় আদালতে মোকদ্দমা চলাকালে বন্দকী সম্পত্তি হতে দাবীকৃত টাকা সমুদয় পরিশোধের সম্ভাবনা না থাকিলে বিবাদীর অন্যান্য স্থাবর ও অস্থাবর সম্পত্তি ক্রোকাবদ্ধ ও নিলাম বিক্রয় করিয়া দাবী আদায়ের আদেশ পায়।
(ঘ) আইন ও ইকুইটি মুলে বাদী ব্যাংক আর যে সব প্রতিকার পাইতে হকদার তাহাও পায়।
11.    It is found that the defendant- M/s Sarwar Enterprise entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint contending, interalia, that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable in its present form and manner as there is no cause of action for the suit and the defendant M/s Sarwar Enterprise did not mortgage any property in favour of the plaintiff-bank. It is also contended that the plaintiff bank without accepting the shipping documents of the defendant behind his back sold all imported goods to one Momin, the owner of M/s Ripon Motors, who gave cheques to adjust the loan although, the bank did not encash the said cheques and as such, the defendant M/s Sarwar Enterprise is· not responsible for withdrawing any loan amount whatsoever.
12.    Now, in deciding the question whether the Artha Rin Adalat was justified in disposing of the suit under Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Ain, 2003 law are required to be referred to for having a better view of the dispute in question. Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 reads as follows:
Ò13(3) মামলার যে কোন পর্যায়ে, লিখিত বর্ণনায় কিংবা অন্য কোনভাবে বিবাদী কর্তৃক বাদীর আরজির বক্তব্য স্বীকৃত হইয়া থাকিলে, এবং উক্তরূপ স্বীকৃতির ভিত্তিতে যেরূপ রায় বা আদেশ পাইতে বাদী অধিকারী, সেইরূপ রায় বা আদেশ প্রার্থনা করিয়া বাদী আদালতের নিকট দরখাস্ত করিলে, আদালত, বাদী ও বিবাদীর মধ্যে বিদ্যমান অপরাপর বিচার্য্য বিষয় নিষ্পত্তির জন্য অপেক্ষা না করিয়া, উপযুক্ত রায় বা আদেশ প্রদান করিবে।” (emphasis added)
13. From the above, it transpires that if the subject matter of the plaint is admitted in the written statement and if the plaintiff filed an application praying for passing judgment under Section 13(3) of the Ain, 2003 and then the Artha Rin Adalat shall dispose of the suit by its judgment or order under the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 in a summary manner without waiting for deciding other issues raised by the parties in the suit. The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is a special law, under Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 the Adalat has been given power to dispose of the case in a summary manner subject to file an application by the plaintiff to dispose of the suit as per provision of Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
14. In this case, we have already noticed that the defendant in his written statement categorically denied the plaintiff's case altogether and the plaintiff-bank did not file any application for disposal of the suit as per provision of section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
15. Our view is, therefore, that the Artha Rin Adalat committed gross illegality in disposing the suit at his own motion under Section 13(3) of the Ain, 2003 and the same does not deserve to be  sustained.
16. In view of all the facts mentioned above, particularly the facts and circumstance of the case and the case made out by the plaintiff-appellant-bank, we are of the view that the suit should be decided by taking into consideration the case of both the parties and for the said purpose the parties will be permitted to adduce evidence both oral and documentary. in support of their respective cases and the Artha Rin Adalat shall consider all aspects of the suit and decide the suit afresh on the basis of the evidence and materials on record.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed without any order as to cost. The impugned judgment and decree dated 20-7-2011 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat, Bogra in Artha Rin Suit No.2 of 2011 disposing the suit as per provision of Section 13(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is set-aside and the suit is remanded to the Artha Rin Adalat for fresh trial in the sight of the observation made above.
18. Since the suit in question is a long pending suit the Artha Rin Adalat is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this judgment.  Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower Court's record be sent down at once.

More News For this Category

Settling dispute related to the propriety of decision

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Naima Haider JATM Saifur Rahman JJudgment October 31st, 2017TM Textiles and Garments Ltd.... PetitionervsBangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Power, Energy and 

Death penalty is not unconstitutional

Appellate Division :(Criminal) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JSyed Mahmud Hossain JMd Imman Ali JHasan Foez Siddique JMirza Hussain Halder JKmmal alias Exol Kamal.........AppellantvsState............RespondentJudgment October 10th, 2017Code of Criminal Procedure

Accused be allowed to produce defence evidence

  High Court Division :Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Md Emdadul Huq J FRM Nazmul Ahasan JShariful Haque (Md) …………………….Petitioner  vsState represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka & another………....... Opposite Parties*

Adjudication process at the grassroots

Dr. M Abul Kashem Mozumder and  Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :A number of studies have appeared  on the topic like gram adalat((Masahreque 1995, 2002, Mashreque and Amin  1995, and

Rights of partners to claim property shares

Appellate Division :(Civil) Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain J Hasan Foez Siddique J Mirza Hussain Haider J Md Bazlur Rahman J Khosrur Rashid (Md) and others ………

Validity period of affidavit

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)Farah Mahbub J Mahmudul Hoque J Khaza Tareq ................. Accused-Petitioner (On Surrender) vsState ..... Opposite Parties· Order August 22nd, 2017 Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Can a 3rd party be precluded for contesting a fraudulent deed?

(From previous issue) :After assessing the evidence, the High Court Division came to a finding that "the defendants had/have been in exclusive possession of the Ghar which is situated

Lending banks' liability in pledge loan

Appellate Division :(Civil) Surendra Kumar Sinha CJSyed Mahmud Hossain JHasan Foez Siddique JMirza Hussain Haider JNimal Chandra Biswas ………….PetitionerVsSonali Bank, Dhaka and another ………..RespondentsJudgmentMarch 20th, 2016Artha Rin Adalat Ain

Can there be successive prosecution?

(From previous issue) :The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, is essentially akin to the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain of Bangladesh, as it creates the offence of money laundering and

Can a 3rd party be precluded for contesting a fraudulent deed?

Appellate Division :(Civil) Nazmun Ara Sultana J Md Imman Ali J Md Nizamul Huq J         Altab Hossain Sikder and others ………. ………..Appellants vs Abdul Malek Sikder and