Artha Rin Adalat Act [IV of 1990]

Section 2-

The suit ·has been filed not for realisation of any loan money from the defendant who was admittedly not a loanee, but he misappropriated the bank money. By no stretch of imagination the suit comes within the provision of Artha Rin Ain.

Agrani Bank vs AFM Emamul Huq 50 DLR 173.

Section 2-

The suo moto conversion of the suit from money suit into a Artha Rin Adalat suit is illegal. As the case was illegally tried by the Adalat by suo moto converting the same from money suit to a Artha Rin Adalat suit the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and the case is sent back on remand for fresh trial in accordance with law.

Agrani Bank vs AFM Emamul Huq 50 DLR 173.

Section 2(Ka)-

It is only the financial institutions as defined in section 2(Ka) which are entitled to institute a case in the Artha Rin Adalat for recovery of loan as defined in section 2(Ka) of the Act and no other person or institution is authorised to file a case before the Artha Rin Adalat.

Sonali Bank vs Ali Tannery Ltd and others 48 DLR 57.

Sections 2(Ka), (Kha) & 5(1), (4)(5)-

The counter-claim of the defendants is not entertainable as only the financial institution can institute the suit in the Court of Artha Rin Adalat for recovery of loan.

Uttara Bank Ltd vs Ali and Co and another 55 DLR 156.

Section 2(Kha)-

Since it is found that amount claimed by the plaintiff is not loan (~ct) within the meaning of section 2(Kha) of the Act in spite of the fact that plaintiff is a financial institution within the meaning of secion 2(Kha) of the said Act, Artha Rin Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of such a suit and, as such, Court below acted illegally in passing the impugned order refusing to reject the plaint. But the suit as filed before Artha Rin Adalat is triable by a civil Court having jurisdiction in the matter. In such circumstances Artha Rin Adalat ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court.

Eastern Bank Ltd vs Subordinate Judge and another 49 DLR 531.

Section 2(Kha)-

The definition clearly indicates that any amount taken from the bank on condition of repayment in whatever name this may be termed comes within the definition of Act. Alco Hygienic Products Ltd. vs.

Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd 47 DLR 264.

Sections 2(Kha) and 5 –

The Artha Rin Adalat has been specially established for deciding those cases only which are for recovery of the loan advanced by the financial institution. The Artha Rin Adalat has acted absolutely without jurisdiction as no power has been vested in the Artha Rin Adalat to try a case other than the realisation of the loan money.

Harunar Rashid vs Subordinate Judge, (Artha Rin Adalat) Bogra and others 50 DLR 170.

Sections 2(Kha) and 5(1) –

Only those suits which are concerned with the realisation of "loan" as defined in the Act and as disbursed by the financial institution can be filed in the Artha Rin Adalat, no other kind of suit.

Sultana Jute Mills Ltd vs Agrani Bank 46 DLR (AD) 174.

Sections 2(Kha) & 5(1) –

Only those suits which are concerned with the realisation of "loan" as defined in the Act and as disbursed by the financial institution can be filed in the Artha Rin Adalat, no other kind of suit.

Sultana Jute Mills Ltd and others vs Agrani Bank and others 46 DLR (AD) 174.

Sections 2(Kha) and 5(1)-

This Court established under a special law cannot travel beyond the parameter set by the Act itself to adjudicate the claim of any claimant who does not come within the definition of financial institution to realise any claim which is not a debt within the meaning of the Act.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Md Mamunur Rahman and another 54 DLR 458.

Sections 4 and 7-

Artha Rin Adalat, though a special Court, is nevertheless a Court subordinate to the High Court Division and is, therefore, amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Division.

Sonali Bank vs Ali Tannery Ltd and othes 48 DLR 57.

Sections 2(kha) & 5(1)-

Jurisdiction of Artha Rin Adalat was created with particular objective, mainly for recovery of bank dues. To achieve the purpose, Artha Rin Adalat was made deemed to be a civil court but not a full-fledged civil Court with all powers and jurisdiction of a civil Court. It is a civil Court of defined and limited jurisdiction.

Al Baraka Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Rina Alam and another 56 DLR 588.

Section 2(kha) & 5(1)-

In order to bring subsequent suit within the mischief of section 11, first and foremost requirement is that the Court in which former suit was pending and/or decided must be competent to try subsequent suit, must be of concurrent jurisdiction both in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction and subject.

Al Baraka Bank Bangladesh Ltd vs Rina Alam and another 56 DLR 588.

Section 5-

Cross objection-Whether it is maintainable under the Artha Rin Adalat Act­The right to file a cross-objection would amount to extending the period of limitation prescribed by the Artha Rin Adalat Act which cannot be done as section 5 of the Limitation Act has no manner of application in the case of special limitation. What cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly. For such reasons in respect of a decree under the Artha Rin Adalat Act no cross-objection is maintainable inasmuch as cross-objection is in substance an appeal.

National Bank Limited vs New Sonali Garments (Private) Ltd & others. 45 DLR 547.

Section 5—

The nature and function of Artha Ain Adalat coupled with power and authority clearly indicate that it is a special forum of limited jurisdiction and not an ordinary civil Court.

Sultan Alam vs Rupali Bank 46 DLR 292.

Section 5—

In the instant case the suit has been filed not for realisation of any loan money from the defendant who was admittedly not a loanee, but he misappropriated the bank's money. By no stretch of imagination the suit comes within the provision of Artha Rin Adalat Ain.

Agrani Bank vs AFM Enamul Haq 51DLR186.

Sections 5, 6 and 7-

Since the Artha Rin Adalat Act does not provide any provision, directly or indirectly, contrary to provision of Order IX rule 9 CPC an application under Order IX rule 9 CPC can be entertained by the Artha Rin Adalat.

Sonali Bank vs Md Al-Akram (Badal), and others 46 DLR 671.

Section 5(1 )-

The word in this section refers to 'suit' and not to all kinds of legal proceedings.

Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs Jahan Ara Akhter & others 49 DLR (AD) 80.

Section 5(1 )-

The option is with the financial institution either to bring a suit under section 5(1) of the Act or take recourse to the special procedure provided in the relevant law.

Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs Jahan Ara Akhter & others 49 DLR (AD) 80.

Sections 5, 6, 7 & 8—

The Adalat Ain is a special legislation setting up Special Courts for prompt realisation of loans by financial institutions. Such a Court is a civil Court only for limited purposes. A revisional application under section 151 of the Code against any interlocutory order passed by an Artha Rin Adalat is not maintainable in law.

Belayet Hossain vs Bank Indosuez 50 DLR 431.

Section 5(4) –

The "deeming" clause-In enacting special statutes legislature employs deeming clause as a legal fiction. The function of the Court is to find out the limitation of this legal fiction.

Sultan Alam vs Rupali Bank 46 DLR 292.

Section 5( 4)-

All the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, in pursuance of section 5(4) of the Artha Rin Adalat Act, will be applicable in trying and disposing of a suit by the Artha Rin Adalat.

Sonali Bank vs Md Al-Akram (Badal), and others 46 DLR 671.

Section 5(4) –

The court below has correctly rejected the application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the case pending in the Artha Rin Adalat cannot be heard analogously with any other case filed in any other normal Court created by the Civil Courts Act.

Ripon Packaging and Accessories Ltd vs Eastern Bank Ltd and another 54 DLR 31.

Section 5(4) –

Under section 5(4) of the Ain, Artha Rin Adalat is a Civil Court having all the powers and jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code subject to the provision of the Ain.

Antibiotic Stores and others vs Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat and another 55 DLR (AD) 13.

Section 5(4)(5)-

An aggrieved party i.e. a judgment debtor, has only the forum of appeal when a decree is passed either on contest or ex parte. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable subject to this special law.

MAC, Proprietor Mahtabuddin Chowdhury and another vs Agrani Bank 47 DLR 233.

Section 5(5)-

This provision makes the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceeding of the Artha Rin Adalat, but only if the Adalat Act does not contain anything different.

Jute Mills Ltd VS Agrani Bank 46 DLR (AD) 174.

Section 5(5)-

From the absence of any provision in the Ain prohibiting filling of an application under Order IX rule 9 of the Code and from the specific mention of the Code in sub­section (5) of section 5 of the Ain, provisions of Order IX rule 9 of the Code may be followed by the plaintiff financial institution before the Artha Rin Adalat for setting aside an ex parte order of dismissal of the suit for default.

Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited vs Al-Haj Md Shafiuddin Howlader & another 52 DLR (AD) 76.

Section 5(5)-

Owing to absence of any provision in the Ain prohibiting filing of an application under Order IX rule 9 of the Code and the specific mention of the Code in sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Ain, the provisions of Order IX rule 9 of the Code may be followed by the plaintiff financial institution before the Artha Rin Adalat for setting aside an ex parte order of dismissal of the suit for default.

Agrani Bank vs Artha Rin Adalat and others 55 DLR 389.

Section 5(5)-

Though High Court Division found relying upon the case of Sultana Jute Mills Ltd that a revisional application under section 115 of the Code against an order of the Artha Rin Adalat is not maintainable made the Rule absolute invoking inherent power of the court under section 151 of the Code.

Agrani Bank vs Artha Rin Adalat and others 55 DLR 389.

Sections 5(4) and 7(1)-

Right to prefer appeal or revision to a superior Court is not a fundamental right, but is only a creature of statute.

Nurul Amin vs Pubali Bank 46 DLR 506.

Section 6-

Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable against an order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat. We act under section 151 (I) of the Code and make the Rule absolute with a direction to the Adalat to return the plaint to the filing Advocate for presentation before the proper court.

Kazi Gowaherul Islam (KJ Islam) vs Standard Co-operative Credit Society Ltd and another 50 DLR 333.

Section 6-

There is a complete ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court Division for interference under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure against any interlocutory orders passed by the Artha Rin Adalat.

Kazi Gowaherul Islam (KJ Islam) vs Standard Co-operative Credit Society Ltd and another 50 DLR 333.

Section 6-

Since special provision for appeal has been made against the judgment and decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat no application under Article 102 lies against such judgment and decree.

Gazi M Towfic vs Agrani Bank and others 54 DLR (AD) 6.

Section 6-

By inherent power of the court and on revision the order was set aside by the High Court Division and the Appellate Division upheld the decision holding that such inherent power cannot be exercised while acting under specific provision of the Act governing the disposal of the case.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Mazid and Co and others 54 DLR 340.

Section 6-

Adalat being a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court Division one can seek relief against an interlocutory order under section 115 CPC.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Mazid and Co and others 54 DLR 340.

Section 6-

In exceptional cases only the High Court Division can entertain revisional application challenging an interlocutory order.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Mazid and Co and others 54 DLR 340.

Section 6-

Under the provision of section 6(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Act an application under Order IX rule 13 CPC praying for setting aside ex parte decree cannot be filed without depositing half of the decretal amount.

Pubali Bank Ltd vs Mazid and Co and others 54 DLR 340.

Sections 6 and 7-

Interlocutory order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.

Iftekhar Afzal and another vs Pubali Bank Limited and others 50 DLR 623.

Sections 6 & 7-

The proceeding initiated by filing a cross-objection is in substance an appeal-the respondent is liable to pay necessary court-fee and observe other formalities necessary for preferring an appeal. Cross-objection filed beyond 30 days was rightly rejected. The cited case AIR 1931 Cal. 100 has no relevance.

Zahirul Islam vs National Bank Ltd 46 DLR (AD) 110.

Sections 6 and 7-

The High Court Division is not vested with the revisional jurisdiction against any order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat.

Shahidullah (Md) vs Eastern Bank Ltd and others 54 DLR 41.

Sections 6 and 7-

Under the Ain of 1990 two remedies were available to judgment-debtor­plaintiff-appellant. One, a petition under Order IX rule 13 of The Code and the other an appeal before the High Court Division. In both cases deposit of half of decretal amount was a positive requirement and mandate. The plaintiffs­appellants without availing the remedies available to them challenged the rightness of the judgment arid decree in a suit before a court of ordinary civil jurisdiction. The suit, thus, is eminently barred by law justifying rejection of plaint.

Delwar Hossain and others vs Janata Bank and others 55 DLR 585.

Sections 6 and 9-

Artha Rin Adalat – ­Administrative and appellate authority relating to its functions – Except the power of transfer of a suit from one Artha Rin Adalat to another Artha Rin Adalat, the District Judge has not been given any jurisdiction over the suits cognisable by an Artha Rin Adalat. Artha Rin Adalat Act has made the Artha Rin Adalat subordinate to the High Court Division. A decree passed by an Artha Rin Adalat could not be interfered with except in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

National Bank Limited vs New Sonali Garments (Private) Ltd & others 45 DLR 547.

Section 6(2)-

Since the aggrieved party sought relief before the court in revisional jurisdiction challenging the impugned order which on the face of it is illegal, it will not be proper to say that High Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the same on the ground that no revision lies against an interlocutory order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat.

Pubali Bank Limited vs Mazid and Co and others 54 DLR 144.

Section 6Ka-

In view of the language used in section 6 ka of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 the provisions of section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be a bar in passing an order for detention or arrest of a woman in execution of a decree for payment of money.

Hazera Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat and another 54 DLR 78.

Section 6(Ka) –

Under section 6 ka of the Act, the Adalat has been given power to pass an order which may not be in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to execution of a decree.

Hazera Begum vs Artha Rin Adalat and another 54 DLR 78.

Section 7-

There is no provision for any appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat, rather the proviso to section 7 of the Act has expressly created a bar against such order.

James D Sarker vs Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank 44 DLR 394.

Section 7-

The Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable for the purpose of an appeal against an order of Artha Rin Adalat not being a decree, judgment or final order under Order IX rule 13 of the CPC. In that view of the matter, the order of the Artha Rin Adalat refusing to set aside an auction sale held in an execution proceeding being only an ad interim order is not appealable.

Aminul Hoque vs Janata Bank 46 DLR 614.

Section 7-

Artha Rin Adalat-It is not an ordinary civil Court-Under the Artha Rin Adalat Act,  High Court Division is the appellate forum both against the decree or an order of rejection of an application under Order IX rule 13 CPC passed by an Artha Rin Adalat. The period of limitation is the same for an Appeal and a Misc. Appeal. The normal period for preferring a regular or Misc. Appeal in his court is 90 days. The period of limitation for preferring a Misc. Appeal under the Artha Rin Adalat Act is 30 days. It is therefore quite clear that the Artha Rin Adalat is not an ordinary civil Court but a special civil Court.

National Bank Limited vs New Sonali Garments(Private) Ltd & others 45 DLR 547.

Section 7-

That the suit against the petitioner was barred by limitation and in excess of the Court's jurisdiction are matters to be agitated in appeal and not under the writ jurisdiction.

Zahirul Islam vs National Bank Limited and others. 46 DLR (AD) 191.

Section 7-

Delay-High Court Division has no power to condone the delay in respect of an appeal preferred beyond 30 days against the judgment and decree of an Artha Rin Adalat.

National Bank Limited vs New Sonali Garments (Private) Ltd & others 45 DLR 547.

Section 7-

Limitation-Mode of calculation -Superficially there is hardly any distinction between 30 days and one month of limitation provided for in these laws. By judicial interpretation it has been held that the two are not identical. The mode of calculation on the basis of 30 days and that on the basis of one month are different as approved by the Appellate Division of our Supreme Court.

National Bank Limited vs New Sonali Garments (Private) Ltd & others 45 DLR 547.

Section 7-

Remedies against an ex parte decree under the Act is either by an application or by an appeal and the requirement in both the cases being deposit of 50% of the decretal amount. ­There is no short-cut by invoking section 151 even on ground of fraud.

Nur Islam (Md) vs Agrani Bank 49 DLR (ADJ 135.

Section 7-

The manner in which stay of execution of decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat was obtained cannot be supported but the fact remains that the High Court Division cannot interfere under section 115 of the CPC in an interlocutory matter passed by the Artha Rin Adalat.

Agrani Bank vs W Rahman Jute Mills Ltd and ors 51 DLR 235.

Section 7-

Even in the event of· granting time by the High Court Division for depositing, the deposit in the case not having been made within the statutory time, cannot be construed to be a valid deposit for entertainment of a memorandum of appeal.

Abdus Sattar and others vs International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd 52 DLR (AD) 122.

Section 7-

Appeal before High Court Division under section 7. Furnishing of Bank Guarantee will be sufficient to comply with the requirement of section 7 of the Act.

Habib Bank Ltd vs Eastern Bank Limited and another 52 DLR 537.

Section 7-

If Bank Guarantee is given for a limited period before filing appeal in the High Court Division, it shall have to extend the period of Bank Guarantee before expiry of the previous one.

Habib Bank Ltd vs Eastern Bank Limited and another 52 DLR 537.

Section 7-

The deposit was made on 5-4-99 which is long after the submission of the Memorandum of Appeal. This deposit is not in accordance with the provision of the Ain and, as such, the same cannot be construed as proper and legal deposit.

Abdus Sattar and others vs International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd 52 DLR 4.

Section 7(1)-

The order passed by the learned Artha Rin Adalat dismissing the suit for default cannot be called a judgement as contemplated under section 7(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Act.

Sonali Bank vs Md Al-Akram (Badal), and others. 46 DLR 671.

Section 7(2)-

The expression (-) used in sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act cannot be construed to be "bank guarantee". The expression Artha means (-) as used in this sub-section is equivalent in English cash money and not "Bank Guarantee".

Abdus Sattar and others vs International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd 52 DLR (ADJ 122.

Section 8-

Artha Rin Adalat Ain is a Special law and the Adalat though a Civil Court is a Civil Court of defined nature having its own forum of appeal and section 5 of the Limitation Act has no manner of application in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. When there is special limitation in a special law, that is, mandatorily to be followed.

Habib Bank Limited vs UAE Bangladesh, Investment Company Limited and another 52 DLR 25.

Section 8-

Deposit of the US Dollars is not a deposit in accordance with the provision of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain.

Habib Bank Limited vs UAE Bangladesh, Investment Company Limited and another 52 DLR 25.

Section 8(4)-

Where there is no deposit as contemplated under the Ain the tendering of this appeal without deposit is beyond the scope and, as such, the appeal cannot be entertained.

Habib Bank Limited vs UAE Bangladesh, Investment Company Limited and another 52 DLR 25.

Section 9-

Since this appellant had not deposited half of the decretal amount before perferring the appeal, in the eye of law this appeal is incompetent.

Firoz Miah vs Sonali Bank, Wage Earners Branch and others 48 DLR 279.

Whether a revisional application or a writ will lie against an interlocutory order passed by Artha Rin Adalat—Interlocutory order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction—the power of superintendence should not ordinarily be exercised if any other remedy is available to the aggrieved party. And Article 102 of the Constitution having wider scope is available against an interlocutory order passed by Artha Rn Adalat. [Paras-17. 18 & 19]

Iftekhar Afzal Vs. Pubali Bank Ltd & Ors 6 BLT (HCD)-166

Whether the said Ain has empowered the Artha Rin Adalat to review its own Judgment –

The Artha Rin Adalat will follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for regulating the procedure in respect of such proceedings if It is not contrary to the provisions of the Act. The nature and function of the Artha Rin Adalat coupled with Its power and authority clearly indicate that it is a special forum of limited jurisdiction and not an ordinary civil court right to review like the right of appeal is a substantive right and not a mere matter of procedure — the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication no application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies in the Artha rin Adalat. The review application was not entertalnable by the Artha Rin Adalat and as such, Incompetent. [Paras-4 & 61]

Sultan Alam Vs Rupali Bank 2BLT (HCD)-1 18

Section-2 (Kha)

Loan —It seems that there is uniform opinion that with the deposit of money in a bank the relationship that follows between the banker and the depositor is one of debtor and creditor and the amount deposited is a debt to the depositor. Applying this proposition in the facts of the instant case as set out In the plaint there seems to be no escape from the conclusion that the defendant has a debt to the plaintiff which is concurrently found to be a financial institution and that being so it must be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff in the Artha Rin Adalat for realizing the said debt which is a loan; under Section 2 (Kha) is quite maintainable.

Saudi Bangladesh kid. & Ors Vs. Eastern Bank Ltd. & Anr 7 BLT (AD)-372

Section-5

Revisional jurisdiction –  Admittedly the opposite parties are not financial institution. Accordingly, the Artha Rin Adalat, under the provision Artha Rin Adalat Act cannot legally pass any order as to how the suits filed under the general law would proceed simultaneously or otherwise with suits filed in Artha Rin Adalat under the provision of Artha Rin Adalat, obviously if any such order is passed that cannot be said to have been passed under the Artha Rin Adalat Act and that order cannot get the benefit of section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Act.

As such we hold that the Artha Rin Adalat acted beyond its jurisdiction conferred by section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Act—impugned orders are amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. Paras-16 & 171

United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. MIS Freshner Bucket & Redoing Industries & Ors 6BLT(HCD)-182

Sectlon-5(4) (5) Read with Order-7 Rule-II and Order-S Rule-6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

In a case under Artha Rin Adalat Am whether a defendant can claim in written statement a set off or counterclaim— Whether an application under Order 7 Rule11 C.P.C. lies for rejection of that counterclaim and whether a writ petition or civil revisional application will lie to the High Court Division.

A defendant cannot claim in a written statement a set off or counterclaim against the plaintiff in a suit filed under the Artha Rin Adalat Act.

The bar to claim a set off or counterclaim is not expressly contained in the Artha Rin Adalat Act, but it is impliedly contained in section 5(1) read with section-2 (ka), 2 (kha) and sections-5(4) and 5(5) thereof. Although the effect of a set off or counterclaim is that of a plaint in a cross suit, Order-7, Rule-11, C.P.C will not apply in rejecting such set off or counterclaim. Plaintiff may have recourse to section 151 of the C.P.C. for such rejection. Alternatively, plaintiff may bring the maintainability of the set off or counterclaim as an issue of law under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. which may be decided first. In view of the patent inadmissibility of the counterclaim within the framework of Adalat Act, plaintiffs’ application under Order-7 Rule -11 can be treated as one under Section-151 C.P.C.

Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Agrani Bank & Ors. 2 BLT (AD)-127

Sections-6 and 7 Read with Order-41 Rule-22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Artha Rin Adalat is a special forum created by a law for adjudication of suits which can be filed by a Bank or a financial institution for recovery of its dues. Section- 7 of the ARA Act provides for a Special Period of Limitation of 30 days for preferring an appeal against the judgment of the decree of the ARA. The cross-objection filed beyond thirty days was rightly rejected by the High Court Division as time barred—in view of Section-6 of the ARA Act a defendant can only challenge the decree of the ARA by filing an appeal under Section-7 of the Act—and is liable to pay necessary court fee and observe other formalities—the petitioners are not entitled to file any cross- objection, under Order-4l, Rule-22 of the Code of Civil Procedure—the petitions are dismissed.

Md. Zahirul Islam Vs. National Bank Ltd. 2 BLT (AD)

Section-7

Although in section 7 it is provided that a judgment or decree of Artha Rin Adalat Is appealable yet a judgment which does not result in a decree but results only in an order is not appealable under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. 1990. If any other meaning Is given to section 7, then this section will mean that the judgment is appealable but the operative portion of the judgment, namely, the order, will have to be challenged otherwise than by way of appeal. Such an incongruous result cannot be contemplated in any law.

Sardar Jart-A-Alam Vs. Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. & Ors. 7 BLT (AD)-254

Section-7(2)

Limitation—In the instant suit, the legal and correct decree was prepared and signed by the trial court on 3.9.96 when the original wrong decree prepared and signed on 7.2.96 was rectified upon realisation of deficit court fees from the plaintiff decree holders on the direction of the High Court Division—the limitation for preferring the appeal in question would start from 3.9.96 and not from 7.2.96.

ACKO Industries & Cold Storage Ltd. & Anr Vs. Pubali Bank Ltd. & Ors 6BLT (AD)-126

Amendment of the Written Statement

Prayer for amendment of the written statement — trial court rejected the prayer for amendment on the ground that since the petitioners filed the additional written statement, his application for amendment of the original written statement cannot be allowed—Held : Amendment of the written statement as sought by the defendant further the proposed amendment may also be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties

—Rule is made absolute. [Paras-9 & 10]

Rafiqullah & Ors Vs. Momtaz Uddin & Ors. 4BLT (HCD)-76

Answer to Interrogatories

Petitioner is the elected chairman of Pourashava—Respondent No. 2 challenging the electing of the petitioner, on the ground that he was a defaulter in repayment of loan taken from the Bangladesh Krishi Bank. The petitioner appeared and contested the case stating, inter alia, that he was not a defaulter. On the date for further examination of the petitioner, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking leave of the court to ask him two specific questions, namely (1) what was the time of repayment of the loan sanctioned by the Krishi Bank and how this time has been given? and (b) was the payment of installment re-scheduled by the Bank and if so what are the re-scheduled dates? The tribunal rejected the said application, the High Court Division observed that the petitioner should be allowed to give his reply in question No. 1, without saying anything about question No. 2.

Held: It is difficult to appreciate why the Tribunal rejected the prayer for the aforesaid 2 questions to be put to the petitioner because his case apparently was that he was not a defaulter. In order to substantiate his defence, he cannot bring any relevant fact on the record. Evidently the answers to the two questions will be relevant for the purpose of his defence. The petitioner should have been allowed to reply to both the questions. [Para-7]

Abdur Razzak Ashis Vs. Elec. Tribunal  & Sub Judge & Ors 3 BLT (AD)-182

Elements of the Benami Transaction

The 4 elements—In a case where the plaintiff claims title in the benami of the defendant the sale certificate is the most vital and material document and the sale certificate of the instant case along with the writ of delivery of possession were produced by the plaintiff from his own custody—Although the source of purchase money is an important criteria but Is not conclusive where there are other circumstances showing that the purchaser intended, property to belong to the person in whose favour the sale deed is executed—though both the courts below did not elaborately discussed about the 4 elements on the benami transaction but nevertheless it appears that in fact both the courts below took into consideration the elements—both the courts below have rightly arrived at a concurrent finding that the defendant No. 1 was benamder of the Plaintiff No. 1. [Paras-15 & 17]

Sananda Mohan Barua & Ors. Vs. Niranjart Proshad Barua & Ors 4 BLT (HCD) -187 .