Case No: Civil Revision No. 3541 of 1999
Court: High Court Division,,
Advocate: AKM Nazrul Islam ,,
Citation: 55 DLR (2003) 107
Case Year: 2003
Appellant: Azizur Rahman
Respondent: Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha and others
Subject: Civil Law,
Delivery Date: 2002-10-21
High Court Division
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
Gour Gopal Saha, J.
Md. Abdus Salam, J.
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha and others
October 21, 2002.
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Ordinance (PO 178 of 1972)
Article 33 (1)
Under the Order the Sangstha has to file an application under Article 33 (1) before the District Judge. A Subordinate Judge acting as an Artha Rin Adalat cannot directly entertain such an application.
Case Referred To-
Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs. Fashion Wear Ltd., 1998 BLD (AD) 186.
Not represented‑ the Petitioner.
AKM Nazrul Islam, Advocate‑ For the Opposite Parties.
Civil Revision No. 3541 of 1999
Gour Gopal Saha J.
1. This Rule is directed against order No. 35 dated 28‑6‑1999 passed by the 2nd Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka in Miscellaneous Case No. 36 of 1993 transferring the aforesaid case to the Court of the District Judge, Dhaka.
2. Short facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that opposite party Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha filed an application before the District Judge, Dhaka for realisation of its outstanding dues from the petitioner under Article 33 of Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order, 1972 (PO No. 178 of 1972). Eventually the case was transferred to the 2nd Commercial Court and Subordinate Judge, Dhaka for disposal. By the impugned order dated 28‑6‑1999 the learned Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat found that the case is triable by the District Judge and on such finding he transferred the same to the Court of the District Judge, Dhaka.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 28‑6‑1999, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present rule.
4. No one appears to support the Rule.
5. Mr. AKM Nazrul Islam, the learned Counsel appearing for opposite party Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha, support, the impugned order and contends, inter alia, that the learned Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat committed no error of law in passing the impugned order.
6. We have carefully gone thorough the impugned order and other materials on record. Article 33 of Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Order provides for filing an application for realisation of its outstanding dues from the defaulting loanees before the District Judge. It also provides that the District Judge concerned may try the case himself or transfer it to the Additional District Judge or Subordinate Judge for its disposal. It further provides that such an application has to be filed before the District Judge and the Subordinate Judge cannot entertain such an application directly. The District Judge is competent to entertain such a case under Article 33(1) of PO No. 178 of 1972 while the Artha Rin Adalat is competent to entertain and dispose of a case filed before it under section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 (Act No. IV of 1990). A financial institution can avail of the opportunity made available to it either under its parent Ordinance of Act or it can have recourse to the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 1990 for prompt realisation of its dues from the defaulting loanees.
7. Mr. AKM Nazrul Islam, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, has referred to us the case of Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha Vs. Fashion Wear Ltd reported in 1998 BLD (AD) 186 wherein it has been held that the Subordinate Judge acting as an Artha Rin Adalat or Commercial Court cannot entertain an application under Article 33(1) of PO No. 178 of 1972 directly. In the instant case it is found from the record that the application by the Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha was filed directly before the Subordinate Judge. In such view of the matter, we find that the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in sending the case to the Court of the District Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. We do not find any illegality or legal impropriety in the impugned order occasioning failure of justice so as to justify interference by this Court exercising revisional power under section 115 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. We find no merit in the Rule, which must fail accordingly.
In the result, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs. The order of stay granted earlier by this Court is hereby vacated.