Cromvege Tannaries Ltd. and another Vs. Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka, VI ADC (2009) 594

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1610 of 2008

Judge: Md. Tafazzul Islam ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud,Mr. Md. Abu Siddique,,

Citation: VI ADC (2009) 594

Case Year: 2009

Appellant: Cromvege Tannaries Ltd. and another

Respondent: Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka

Subject: Artha Rin,

Delivery Date: 2009-04-22

Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
MM Ruhul Amin, CJ.
Md. Tafazzul Islam, J.
Md. Abdul Matin, J.
Md. Abdul Aziz, J.
 
M/s. Cromvege Tannaries Ltd. and another
....................Petitioners
Vs.
Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka and others
………........Respondents
 
Judgment
April 22, 2009.
 
The Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003
Section 33(5)
Certificate under section 33(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 due to non availability of bidder in the auction sale held on 4.4.2005 for sale of the properties mortgaged by the judgment debtor petitioners as security for the loan.
 
Case Referred To-
13 MLR (AD) 356.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Md. Abu Siddique Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Rokonuddin Mahmood, Senior Advocate, instructed by Binosh Chandra Biswas, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents No. 3.
Not represented-Respondent Nos. 1-2.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1610 of 2008.
(From the judgment and order dated 1.7.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.1653 of 2007).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Tafazzul Islam J.
 
1. This petition for leave to appeal is directed the judgment and order dated 1.7.2008 of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition No. 1653 of 2007 discharging the Rule obtained challenging the order dated 14.7.2005 of the Artha Rin Adalat No.1 Dhaka passed in Artha Rin Execution Case No. 141 of 2002, issuing in favour of the respondent No. 3 the decree hold­er, the certificate under section 33(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 due to non availability of bidder in the auction sale held on 4.4.2005 for sale of the properties mortgaged by the judgment debtor petitioners as security for the loan.
 
2. The petitioners filed the above writ petition on the averments that they took loan of Tk. 1,50,000/- from Agrani Bank, the respondent No.3, and they having failed to repay the loan, the respondent No. 3 filed title Suit No.199 of 1997 in the Artha Rin Adalat No.1 Dhaka for realization of the loan with accrued interest by sale of the mortgaged proper­ties and the petitioners, appearing in the above that suit, filed written statement but ultimately did not contest and then by judgment and decree dated 10.1.2002 the above suit was decreed ex parte and the above decree was made final on 28.4.2002 for a sum of Tk.12,83,91,013.35 as on 1.7.1997 with interest @ 20% thereon from 1.7.1997 till realisation and then on the basis of the said final decree Agrani Bank start­ed Artha Rin Execution Case No.141 of 2002 in the same very Court wherein attempt was made for selling the mort­gaged properties in auction with a view to realize the decretal amount with inter­est and costs but that attempt failed due to non availabilities of any bidder in the auction held on 4.5.2005 and then the executing Court by order dated 14.7.2005 illegally disposed of the above Execution Case No.1411 of 2002 under section 33(9) of Ain 2003 on the basis of the certificate issued under sec­tion 33(5) and further the above Execution Case No.141 of 2002, being not a pending suit, under section 60(3) of Ain 2003 the same can not be trans­ferred to the Artha Rin Adalat constitut­ed under the new Ain 2003 and as such the entire proceeding of the above exe­cution case is also illegal.
 
3. Agrani Bank opposed the Rule and filed affidavit in opposition contending that the words "বিচারাধীন সকল মামলা" as provided in section 60(3) of Ain 2003 also include pending execution cases and as such the continuation of the above Execution Case No.141 of 2002 in the above Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka constituted under Ain 2003 is in accordance with law.
 
4. The High Court Division, after hear­ing, discharged the Rule holding that the words "বিচারাধীন সকল মামলা" as provided in section 60(3) of Ain, 2003 also include pending execution cases and as such after coming into force of Ain 2003, all pending execution cases instituted under the provisions of Ain 1990, stood trans­ferred to the Artha Rin Adalats constituted under Ain, 2003 and accordingly all such execution case, so transferred, would be proceeded as per provision of new Ain 2003  and accordingly  the Execution Case no. 141 of 2002 was validly trans­ferred to the Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Dhaka constituted under Ain 2003 and the issuance of certificate under section 33(5) of Ain 2003 and the impugned order dated 14.7.2003  under  section 33(a) of Ain 2003 does not suffer from any illegality and further the contents of the instant writ petition also show that the petitioners, who appeared in the above Title Suit No. 199 of 1997 and also filed written statement, obviously knew about the judgment and decree passed therein against them and also the starting of the above Execution Case no. 141 of 2002 against them but in spite of that they remained silent for a long period and moreover the impugned order was passed on 14.7.2005 and the writ peti­tion was filed on 27.2.2007, long after, and for this inordinate delay the writ petition is also not maintainable.
 
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certificate issued under section 33(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 in favour of the respondent No.3, the decree-holder bank, is only for possession and enjoyment of the mort­gaged properties and it did not mean final disposal of the above execution case for which further action for disposal of the suit property is necessary under section 33(7) of Ain 2003 and the High Court Division misconstruing the provi­sion of section 33(9), summarily reject­ed the writ petition.
 
6. Section 33(5) of Ain 2003, in terms of which certificate was issued, provides as follows:
 
"কোন সম্পত্তি উপধারা ১,২ ও ৩ এর বিধান অনুসারে নীলামে বিক্রয় করা সম্ভব না হইলে আদালত পূনরায় কমপক্ষে বহুল প্রচলিত দুইতি বাংলাল জাতীয় দৈনিল পত্রিকায় তদুপরি ন্যায় বিচারের সার্থে প্রয়োজন মনে করিলে স্থানিয় এক্তি পত্রিকায় যাদি থাকে উপ-ধারা ১ এর অনুরুপ পদ্ধতিতে বিজ্ঞপ্তি প্রকাশ করাইয়া এবং আদালতের নোটিশ বোর্ডে নোটিশ টাঙ্গাইয়া ও স্থানীয় ভাবে ঢোল সহরতযোগে সীল্ররমোহরকৃত টেন্ডার আহবান করিবে এবং বিক্রয় ও বাজেয়াপ্ত বিশয়ে উপধারা ২ ও ৩ উল্লেখিত বিধান অনুসরন করিবে "
 
7. Section 35(9) of the Ain 2003 in terms of which the impugned order dated 14.7.2005 was passed provides as follows:
 
"উপধারা (৫) এর অধীন সম্পত্তির দিখল ও ভোগের অধিকার বা উপধারা (৭) এর অধীনের সম্পত্তির স্বত্ত ডিক্রীদারের ডিক্রীদারের অনুকুলে ন্যাস্ত হইলে ধারা ২৮ এর বিধান সাপেক্ষে উক্ত ডিক্রী জারী মামলার চুড়ান্ত নিষ্পত্তি হইবে“
 
8. In the decision  reported in 13 MLR (AD)356 this very issue regarding disposing of such execution case under section 33(9) of Ain 2003 on the basis of certificate issued under section 33(5) of Ain 2003 came for consideration where­in the learned counsel for the leave peti­tioner submitted that the certificate was issued under section 33(5) of Ain 2003 in favour of the decree holder bank for possession and enjoyment of the mort­gaged properties and it did not mean final disposal of the execution case for which further action for disposal of the mortgaged properties is necessary under section 33 (7) of the said Act and the High Court Division misconstrued the provision of section 33(9) in holding that the execution case was finally dis­posed of and thereby erred in summari­ly rejecting the writ petition but this Division did not except the above sub­mission and dismissed the leave petition holding that there is no substance on the points as raised above.
 
9. Accordingly there being no illegality or infirmity in the decision of the High Court Division no interference is called for.
 
10. The petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.