(Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Md. Fazlul Haque J
NK Chakravartty J
Ripon Packaging and Accessories Ltd………. Petitioner
Eastern Bank Ltd. and another………………….. Opposite-Parties
June 4, 2001.
Case Referred To-
Bangladesh Shilpa Bank vs. Bangladesh Hotels Ltd., 38 DLR (AD) 70; Ahmed Silk Mills Ltd. vs. Bangladesh Shilpa Bank, 42 DLR 140; Iftekhar Afzal vs. Pubali Bank Ltd. and others, 6 BLT (HCD) 166 & 38 DLR (AD) 70.
M Ziaul Hassan, Advocate—For the Petitioner.
MA Samad with MGH Ruhullah, Advocates—For the Opposite Parties.
Civil Revision No. 4008 of 1999.
Md. Fazlul Haque J.- This Rule is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-7-99 passed by the District Judge, Dhaka in Transfer Miscellaneous Case No. 326 of 1999 rejecting the petitioner’s application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the Title Suit No. 153 of 1998 pending in the Court of 5th Subordinate Judge, Dhaka to Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka for being heard analogously with Title Suit No. 88 of 1998 pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka.
2. Short facts for the purpose of disposal of this Rule are that the present petitioner as plaintiff instituted a Title Suit No. 153 of 1998 in the Court of 5th Subordinate Judge, Dhaka against the defendant-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for a declaration that demand of interest and penal interest by the defendant Bank is illegal, fraudulent, collusive and they further prayed that the plaintiff company is under no obligation to entertain any claim of the defendants and is in no way liable for the dues of the defendant-opposite parties and further that those interest cannot be recovered from the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff has further stated that the plaintiff company opened a CC Account No. 21 with the defendant-opposite party No. 2 subject to the condition that the defendant- opposite parties will extend from time to time credit facilities to the plaintiff-petitioner for their working capital import export credit finance and other normal banking facilities. In the year 1997, the defendant-opposite parties bank arbitrarily discontinued to provide the aforesaid facilities to the petitioner whereby the plaintiff-petitioner suffered a severe loss and damage and that the defendant opposite parties bank are not entitled to claim the loan money given to the plaintiff-petitioner.
3. The plaintiff-petitioner has stated that the opposite party No. 2 bank as plaintiff also instituted a Title Suit No. 88 of 1998 in the Court of Artha Rin Adalat No. 3, Dhaka against the present petitioner impleading them as defendant for a decree of Taka 1,19,01,239.34 alleging inter alia, that the present petitioner availed various credit facilities from the opposite party No. 2 bank and they failed to repay the same within the specific time. The present petitioner, in fact, has been contesting the suit.
4. The present-petitioner also filed an application in the Court of District Judge, Dhaka under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the Title Suit No. 153 of 1998 pending in the Court of 5th Subordinate Judge to Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No. 3 so that the said suit No. 153 of 1998 can be heard analogously with Title Suit No. 88 of 1998.
5. The District Judge, Dhaka after hearing the parties and on consideration of the law involved in it rejected the said application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure mainly on the ground that the Title Suit No. 153 of 1998 pending in the 5th Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhaka cannot be tagged with the Title Suit No. 88 of 1998 pending in the 3rd Court of Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka since the procedure of disposal of these 2 suits are different.
6. The present petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12-7-99 passed by the District Judge, Dhaka in Transfer Miscellaneous Case No. 326 of 1999 moved this Court in revision and obtained the present Rule.
7. Mr. M Ziaul Hasan, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the Artha Rin Adalat is also a Civil Court and the said Court is vested with the same self-jurisdiction as any other court is having in addition to the jurisdiction vested in it by the Artha Rin Adalat Ain. The learned Advocate further submits that in view of section 5(4) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain there is no difficulty in disposing of other Civil cases, specifically in view of the fact that common question of law, facts and evidence are involved in both the suits and the should be heard analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions which may arise.
8. The opposite parties bank have filed counter-affidavit and denied the material facts and law as contended by the present-petitioner. Mr. MA Samad, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant-opposite parties bank, submits that the Artha Rin Adalat has been created by special law to deal with the cases of recovering of loan at the instance of the financial institution. The Artha Rin Adalat has its own certain special procedure, and the Artha Rin Adalat does not have jurisdiction to hear the ordinary civil cases along with the Artha Rin Adalat case. Further, the learned Advocate submits that the parties in both the suits are not the same and the issues are also not the same. The learned Advocate submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court of District Judge is based on law and facts and it is not amenable to revision. Mr. MA Samad, the learned Advocate, has placed reliance on a decision (1) in the case of Bangladesh Shilpa Bank Vs. Bangladesh Hotels Ltd. reported in 38 DLR (AD) 70, (2) in the case of Ahmed Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Shilpa Bank reported in 42 DLR 140 and (3) in the case of Iftekhar Afzal Vs. Pubali Bank Ltd. and others reported in 6 BLT (HCD) 166.
9. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the Court of District Judge, Dhaka and considered the aforesaid decisions and we are of the view that 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. The suit No. 153 of 1998 pending in the 5th Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhaka is a suit under general law, whereas the Title Suit No. 88 of 1998 is a suit filed under special law, and the Artha Rin Adalat has its own certain special procedure than that of the procedure applicable in the suit under general law. Thereafter, the finding of the District Judge that the Title Suit No. 153 of 1998 being the suit under the general law cannot be tagged and heard analogously with the Title Suit No. 88 of 1998 and a suit filed under special law and the aforesaid finding arrived at by the District Judge is supported by a decision reported in 38 DLR (AD) 70.
10. In view of the above decisions we are inclined to hold that the District Judge has correctly rejected the said application and Title Suit No. 153 of 1998 cannot be transferred to the Court of Artha Rin Adalat for hearing analogously with Title Suit No. 88 of 1998. The Court of District Judge has not committed any error of law and warrants no interference by this Court.
11. In the result, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below is hereby affirmed.
The order of stay granted by this Court on 31-10-1999 is hereby vacated.
The suits shall proceed in accordance with the law and both the suits be disposed of as early as possible preferably within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment.