Md. Kamal Uddin Akand Vs. Artha Rin Adalat and others, 2008

Supreme Court

Appellate Division

(Civil)

Present:

M.M. Ruhul Amin CJ

Mohammad Fazlul Karim J

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Md. Joynul Abedin J

Md. Abdul Matin J

Md. Kamal Uddin Akand………………………………. Petitioner

Vs.

Artha Rin Adalat and others…………………………..Respondents

 

Judgment

August 11, 2008.

Lawyers Involved:

S.N. Goswami Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.

Not represented- the Respondents.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 936 of 2007.

(From the judgment and order dated 20.3.2007 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 6930 of 2004).

Judgment

               Md. Tafazzul Islam J. – This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2007 of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition No. 6930 of 2004 discharging the Rule obtained challenging the judgment and order dated 9.10.2004 of the First Court of Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, Gazipur passed in Artha Rin Cases No.70 of 2004 allowing the appli­cation filed by the plaintiff under section 13(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 of passing the judgment and decree on the basis of the admission of the defendant petitioner in his written statement, was allowed.

2. The respondent No. 2, as plaintiff, insti­tuted the above case for realization of Tk.32,12,050/- on the averments the defendant, who is the proprietor of M/S Akand Poultry Complex, on 20.8.1995 took loan of Tk.13,90,000/- for making development of the said poultry complex and as per terms and conditions of the loan the defendant petitioner was required to repay the entire loan within 7.9.03 but he failed.

3. The defendant filed written statement on 19.08.04 contending that the suit is bad for want for cause of action and also for want of statements of accounts and claim of the plaintiff is based on false and ficti­tious claim. The suit was fixed an 15.9.04 for framing issue which was adjourned till 9.10.04 and on 16.09.04 the defendant filed and application under Order 26 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to examine the accounts whereupon the plaintiff, on 15.9.2004, on the basis of the admission of the defendant petitioner in his written statement filed and application under Section 13(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 for judgment and decree praying as follows:

“????? ?????? ?? ??,

?????? ?????? ?? ????????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ????? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????

????, ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??(?)?? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???

4. Then on 9.10.04 the Adalat ordered as under-” ???? ????????? ??? ??????????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?? (?) ????? ????????? ?????? ??? ????

5. As against that the defendant petitioner moved High Court Division obtained Rule in Writ Petition No. 6930 of 2004 and after hearing the High Court Division dis­charged the Rule.

6. We have heard that the learned counsel of the petitioner perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and also other connected papers.

7. As it appears the High Court Division discharged the Rule holding that the Artha Rin Adalat, while passing the impugned judgment and decree upon rejecting the application filed under order XXVI Rule 11, held that there is no sufficient reasons to appoint a commissioner and that there being no material for framing issues the suit is taken up for disposal under section 13(1) of the Ain 2003 and thereafter the Adalat passed the order dated 9.10.2004 holding that”

??? ???? ?????????? ????????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??????  ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??, ??????  ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? and thus the Adalat considering the statements  made in the written statement specially the statement made in paragraph No. 8 of the written statement came to the conclusion that the defendant petitioner admitted the loan and as such took up the suit for dis­posal under section 13 and that although the Adalat rejected the application file by the defendant under Order XXVI Rule 11 of Code without assigning any reason but the findings arrived at as to disposal of the suit is in accordance with law and upon compliance of the provisions of section 9 and 13 of Ain 2003 and accordingly not without jurisdiction so writ jurisdiction can not be invoked.

8. We are of the view that the High Court Division on proper consideration of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision and there is no illegality or infir­mity in the above decision so as to call for any interference.

The petition is dismissed.

Ed.

Source : VI ADC (2009) 383