Monday, October 15, 2018 | ePaper

Reopening the decree after disposal of the suit is illegal

  • Print
(From previous issue) :
9. Such substituted service cannot be regarded as idle formality. The law intends it as a substitute to actual personal service. Moreover it appears from the record that the 'Dainik Ajker Chattagrami, in its issue dated 18-8-2007 and the 'Dainik Samachar' its issue dated 21-8-2007 published the notice regarding pendency of the aforesaid suit wherein the present petitioners were shown as defendants and it was stated that the instant suit is pending against them. It is relevant here to quote the special provision of serving notice upon the defendants in a Artha Rin Suit provided in Section 7(I) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain which runs as follows:
“৭(১) আপাতত ঃ বলবৎ অন্য কোন আইনে যাহা কিছুই থাকুক না কেন, বাদী আদালতের  জারীকরক কর্ত"ক এবং প্রাপ্তি স্বীকারসহ রেজিষ্ট্রীকৃত ডাকযোগে প্রেরণের নিমিত্ত, আরজির  সহিত সমন জরীর জন্য সমুদয় তলবানা আদালত দাখিল করিবেন, এবং আদালত অবিলম্বে উহাদের একযোগ জারীর ব্যবস্থা করিবেন, এবং সমন ইস্যুর ১৫ (পনের) দিবসের মধ্যে জারী হইয়া ফেরত না আসে, অথবা তৎপূর্বেই বিনা জারীতে ফেরত আসে, তাহা হইলে আদালত উহার পরবর্তী ১৫ (পনের) দিবসের  মধ্যে বাদীর খরচায় যে কোন একটি বহুল প্রচারিতি বাংলা জাতীয় দৈনিক পত্রিকায়, এবং তদুপরি একটি স্থানীয় পত্রিকায়, যদি থাকে, এবং আদালত যদি ন্যায় বিচারের স্বার্থে প্রয়োজনীয় মনে করে, বিজ্ঞপিন প্রকাশের মাধ্যমে সমন জারী করাইবেন, এবং অনুরূপ জারী আইনানুগ জারী মর্মে গণ্য হইবে।
10. Aforesaid provision of service of notice in the Ain has been provided so that the defendants get information as to the pendency of the suit. Where substituted service was done by publication in the newspaper, the presumption of the service cannot be rebutted by making simple statement.
11. Moreso, these defendants did not take any step for gelling the exparte decree set aside. The petitioners filed the instant application under Sections 57, 6(5) of the Ain and under the provision of Order I, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. None of those provisions authorizes the Adalat to modify decree. Section 6(5) of the A in and order I Rule 10 of the Code have got no relevancy in connection with a disposed of suit.
It is true that no Court can be regarded as powerless to recall an order in an under trial case pending before it if it is convinced that the order is wangled through fraud or misrepresentation but pre-condition is that such proceeding must be pending before it. The Court must have jurisdiction over the proceeding before it can exercise any inherent power. The Adalat was not justified in resorting its power under Section 57 of the Ain to reopen the decree after disposing of the suit. The instant Artha Rin Suit has been disposed of exparte against the defendant Nos. 2(a) to (d) and on contest against the rest. Inherent power of the Adalat in Section 57 of the Ain should be exercised subject to the Ain that if the Ain does not contain specific provision which would meet the necessities of the provision should be followed and inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked. The Ain provides express provision against ex-parte decree to get the same set aside but the petitioners, without resorting to such procedure, in fact, made an attempt to get the decree modified bringing application under 57 of the Ain which is not permissible.
12. Since a competent court of law passed the decree against the petitioners who did not appear in the said suit for contesting the same, we are of the view that it is difficult for this Division to disturb the conclusion arrived at by the High Court Division.
13. Accordingly, we do not find any wrong in the judgment and order of the High Court division, which calls for any interference by this Division.
Thus, the petition is dismissed.

More News For this Category

An accused cannot be compelled to be witness against himself

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) M Enayetur Rahim JShahidul Karim J Kazi Md Shahed ..........Ahmed .............Accused-PetitionervsState and others     ....... Opposite-PartiesJudgmentAugust 1st, 2017Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 35(4)

Properties of principal borrower should come first for recovery of bank's dues

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Sheikh Hassan Arif JMd Badruzzaman JElite Iron and Steel GP Sheet Ltd and others .... Petitioners vsJudge, Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka

Upholding the rule of natural justice

Appellate Division : (Civil) Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah  JMd Imman Ali   J AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury  JChairman, Rural Electrification Board at present (Bangladesh Rural electrification Board) Dhaka-----------Petitioner                            VsMaziruddin Ahmed Khan

Criminal case stands for the offence, civil suit for realisation of money

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul Karim J Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury J Judgment July 2nd, 2018 Moinul Hoque Chowdhury and another.…….Accused-Petitioners                   vs State and

Claim over ownership of waqf property!

Appellate Division :(Civil) Abdul Wahhab Miah JMd Imman Ali JHasan Foez Siddique JJudgmentAugust 17th, 2017Hafizuddin (Md) ....................Appellantvs Mozaffor Mridha and others ... RespondentsBengal Waqf Act (XIll of 1934) Section 70(1)(4)

Grounds for rejection of plaint

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Sharif Uddin Chaklader           JKhizir Ahmed Chowdhury      J Eastern Housing Ltd. ………Petitionervs Ainuddin Haydar and others……Opposite-PartiesJudgment September 3rd, 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (V

Sentence should commensurate with the gravity of crime

High Court Division :(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Zafar Ahmed J  Mahmudul Hasan (Md)  ........Petitioner vsState and another……….Opposite PartiesJudgment August 24th, 2017 Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881) Section 138 The

Arbitration clause of the agreement be tried first

(From previous issue) :In a case such as this we are of opinion the suit is not on the face of it barred by law. The very arguments which

Calculation of interest on decree amount

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction)Zinat Ara JAKM Zahirul Hoque JTopman Fashion WearsLimited..........PetitionervsDutch Bangla Bank Limited and others...............RespondentsJudgmentFebruary 15th, 2017Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)Section 50(4)Under Section 50(4)

Principle of double jeopardy

(From previous issue) :39. In respect of these material exhibits no suggestion has been given by the defence that these materials are not belonged to the victim of the