Eastern Builders Ltd. and other Vs. Bangladesh and others, (Md. Nuruzzaman, J.)

Case No: Civil Revision No. 4838 of 2011

Judge: Md. Nuruzzaman, J And S. H. Md. Nurul Huda Jaigirdar, J.

Court: High Court Division,

Advocate: Mr. A.B.M. Bayezid, Advocate,

Citation: 2018(2) LNJ

Case Year: 2018

Appellant: M/S. Eastern Builders Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, A.B.M. Mortoza being dead- Anowara Begum having its register office

Respondent: Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post, Telegraph and Telecommunication, 3rd Floor, Saptom Building, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others.

Subject: Code of Civil Procedure

Delivery Date: 2019-12-01

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Md. Nuruzzaman, J

And

S. H. Md. Nurul Huda Jaigirdar, J.

 

Judgment on

20.02.2018 and 22.02.2018

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

M/S. Eastern Builders Ltd. Represented by its Managing    Director, A.B.M. Mortoza being dead- Anowara Begum having its register office

. . . Petitioner

-Versus-

Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of  Post, Telegraph and Telecommunication, 3rd Floor, Saptom Building, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others.

. . . Opposite Parties

(In C. R. 4838 of 2011

With

Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post, Telegraph and Telecommunication, 3rd Floor, Saptom Building, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others.

. . . Petitioner

-Versus-

M/S. Eastern Builders Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, A.B.M. Mortoza being dead- Anowara Begum having its register office.

. . . Opposite Parties

(In C. R. 365 of 2012)

Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)

Section 38

The Executing Court cannot calculate the interest in the instant Execution Case in violation the dictum of the appellate Court as decided earlier occasion up to Hon’ble Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Moreso, it is well settled maxim of law as enunciated by the apex Court that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.                                         . . . (34)

M/s A.Z. company, Karachi Vs. M/s S. Kaula Baksha Muhammad Bashir Karachi, 17 DLR (S.C) 404; M/S Amin Jute Mills Ltd. Vs ARNG, 28 DLR (AD) 76; 15 BLD (AD) 51; 42 DLR (AD) 294 and AIR 1987 Patha 133 ref.

Mr. A.B.M. Bayezid, Advocate

. . . For the petitioner

(In C. R. No. 4838 of 2011)

Mr. Mosharrof Hossain Sarder, D.A.G with

Mr. S. Rashed Jahangir, D.A.G with

Mrs. Shahida Khatoon, A.A.G with

Mr. Md. Ashrafuddin Khan, A.A.G

. . . For the opposite parties

(In C. R. No. 4838 of 2011)

Dr. Shahdeen Malik, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Monjur Alam, Advocate

. . . For the opposite party No. 3

(In C. R. No. 4838 of 2011)

Mr. Mosharrof Hossain Sarder, D.A.G with

Mrs. Shahida Khatoon, A.A.G with

Mr. Md. Ashrafuddin Khan, A.A.G

. . . For the petitioners

(In C. R. No. 365 of 2012)

 

Dr. Shahdeen Malik, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Monjur Alam, Advocate.

. . .For the petitioner No. 3

(In C. R. No. 365 of 2012)

Mr. A.B.M Bayezid, Advocate

. . . For the opposite party

(In C. R. No. 365 of 2012)

JUDGMENT

Md. Nuruzzaman, J: These two Rules were issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order No. 61 dated 27.09.11, order No. 65 dated 02.11.2011 and order No. 66 dated 27.11.2011 passed by learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, Dhaka in Money Execution Case No. 11 of 2001 arising out of Money Suit No. 13 of 1986 should not be set aside and /or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

2.             The Civil revision No. 4838 of 2011 arose on application at the instance of M/S Eastern Builders against order No. 65 dated 02.11.11 and order No. 66 dated 27.11.2011. The Civil Revision No. 365 of 2012 arose on an application at the instance of Government of Bangladesh and others against the order No. 61 dated 27.09.2011 and order No. 67 dated 16.01.2012.

3.             This Bench simultaneously heard both the revisional applications being arises from the same execution case and impugned orders were passed by the same Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that by a single judgment both the revisional applications should be disposed of, otherwise, there are every possibility of conflicting findings and decisions. However, both the Civil Revisions would be governed by the result of this single judgment.

4.             The material facts, relevant for disposal of the instant Rule, in short, are that the petitioner as plaintiff on 22.01.1986 instituted Money suit No. 13 of 1986 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhaka for realization of Tk. 60,40,551.71 ( sixty lac forty thousand five hundred fifty one taka and seventy one poisha) contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the private Limited company. It has been carrying business of contractor, builders, manufactures, Engineering etc. The plaintiff company is the government approved first class contractor under the public works department of the Government of Bangladesh. The postal department of the government invited tender from first class contractors for construction of 12 storied building for the office of the Director General, Bangladesh post office and General Manager, Post life insurance at 17, Dilkusha Commercial area, Dhaka. The plaintiff company submitted tender and became the lowest bidder. The Director General Bangladesh post office accepted the lowest offer of the plaintiff company. On 23.10.1980 an agreement was executed and signed between the plaintiff and the Director (running) General Bangladesh Post office. The period of 18 months time were allowed for completion of the above mention work. The Director of planning on 01.02.1983 wrote a letter to the plaintiff requesting him to hand over the side to the executive Engineer enclosing a copy of letter dated 29.05.1982 which read as follow:

         “The period of 18 months allowed for completion of the above mention work expired on 22.04.1982. Contract agreement dated 23.10.1980 made with you have become void and thereafter forfeited the earnest and security money of the plaintiff company.”

5.             Hence, the plaintiff company had been compelled to file a suit for realization of Tk. 60,40,551.71 ( sixty lac forty thousand five hundred fifty one taka and seventy one poisha)  as liquidated damage.

6.             Money Suit No. 13 of 1986 was decreed on 21.01.2001 decreeing Tk. 60,40,551.75 (sixty lac forty thousand five hundred fifty one taka and seventy five poisha) ”

7.             Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2001 preferred the First Appeal being No. 245 of 2002. A Division Bench of this Division heard the First Appeal No. 245 of 2002 and dismissed the appeal with modification by its judgment dated 6 and 9 July 2006.

8.             The judgment debtor preferred the Civil petition for leave to appeal being No. 522 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Appellate Division which was dismissed as barred by limitation by order dated 22.07.2008. The judgment debtor unsuccessfully filed review petition 130 of 2009 which was also dismissed by the Appellate Division on 03.01.2010.        

9.             Hence, Money Decree Execution case No. 11 of 2001 was proceeded in accordance with law at the instance of the decree holder.

10.         While the Money Decree Execution Case No. 11 of 2001 was so pending, the decree holder filed an application praying for direction upon the judgment debtor to pay the amount of the decree holder as calculated herein above till 13.09.2011. In view of the application dated 22.09.2011 the Executing Court by its order No. 61 dated 27.9.2011 directed the judgment debtor to pay tk. 23,99,23,660.06 (twenty three crore, ninety nine lac, twenty three thousand, six hundred sixty taka and  zero six poisha).

11.         The judgment debtor on 27.10.2011 filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay the operation of the order dated 27.9.2011 with a prayer to re hear the aforesaid application. The learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Court by its order No. 65 dated 02.11.2011 stayed the operation of the order No. 61 dated 27.11.2011. Hence, at the instance of decree holder the instant Rule being Civil Revision No. 48305 of 2011.

12.         On contra, the judgment debtor filed the revisional application against the order No. 67 dated 16.01.2012 passed by Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, in Money Execution Case No. 11 of 2001 arising out of Money Suit No. 13 of 1986 directing the judgment debtor to pay Tk. 23,99,23,666.06/- as per order No. 61 passed on 17.09.2011

13.         The opposite parties contested in both the Rules by filing an counter affidavit respectively, in revision No. 365 of 2012 a supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit were submitted by the opposite parties stating, inter alia, that the decree holder got decree in the Money suit No. 13 of 1986 against which the defendants preferred the First appeal being No. 245 of 2002 in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. A Division Bench of the High Court Division affirmed the judgment and decree with modification by its judgment dated 6 and 9 July 2006. The judgment debtor against the judgment of the High Court Division dated 6 and 9 July 2006 preferred Civil Petition for leave to appeal No. 522 of 2007 which was dismissed on 22.07.2007. Thereafter, they filed the review application which was also dismissed. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the calculation sheet in respect of the realization of the money is not relevant and necessary as the High Court Division on earlier occasion directed the judgment debtor to make payment as modified in the judgment of First Appeal No. 245 of 2002. Therefore, the decree holder has no locus standi who filed an application calculating the facts and figure beyond the decree Thus, the Executing Court accepting such calculation committed error of law violating the direction of the High Court Division passed in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002, as such, the order No. 61 dated 27.9.2011 is liable to be set aside.

14.         The opposite party No. 3 also of Civil Revision No. 365 of 2012 filed 2 supplementary affidavit in 2nd supplementary affidavit dated 07.01.2018  stated as follows:

         It is stated that during pendency of the Civil Revision No. 4838 of 2011 and Civil Revision No. 365 of 2012 in the Hon’ble High Court Division, a cheque has been presented by the Opposite parties (Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post, Telegraph and Telephone and others) in accordance with the judgment and decree dated 6th and 9th July, 2006 passed in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002 passed by the Hon’ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, being Cheque No. N 2102267 dated 03.01.2018 amounting to Taka 43,08,293.34 (forty three lac eight thousand two hundred ninety three taka and thirty four paisa) in favour of M/S Eastern Builders Ltd. Accordingly, the payee of the said cheque, M/S Eastern Builders Ltd. has been notified to collect the said cheque from the concerned office through an office order being Memo No. ¢f¢h/4-25/83/f¡VÑ-5 dated 03.01.2018 by registered post to its address at 47, Dilkusha Commercial Area, Dhaka-1000. However, after observing the necessary official formalities, including displaying the notice at a visible place of the addressee (mVL¡Cu¡ S¡l£)  but the said letter containing Memo No. ¢f¢h/4-25/83/f¡VÑ-5  dated  03.01.2018 was returned to the office of the opposite parties (Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of post, Telegraph and Telephone and others) as undelivered, and till now nobody has come forward to collect it. Under the circumstances, the Cheque No.  N 2102267 dated 03001.2018 amounting to Taka 43,08,293.34 (Forty three lac eight thousand two hundred ninety three taka and thirty four paisa) in favour of M/S Eastern Builders Ltd. has been submitted before the Hon’ble Court which is now kept in the custody of the Hon’ble Court as Cheque No. N 2102267  dated 03.01.2018 amounting to taka 43,08,293.34 (Forty three lac eight thousand two hundred ninety three taka and thirty four paisa) in favour of M/S Eastern Builders Ltd. as (Annexure-II) which has been annexed with the 1st supplementary affidavit.  

15.         The petitioner denying the contents of the counter affidavit first and 2nd supplementary of the opposite party No. 3 filed counter reply. Mr. A.B.M Bayejid, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the order dated 27.09.2011 an application was filed by the judgment debtor on 03.07.2011 for ascertaining the amount to be paid to the decree holder in accordance with  the Judgment passed by the High Court Division passed in F.A No. 245 of 2002, stating that, nothing is left over to the executing Court to decide the matter afresh and thus, committed serious error of law in the decision in staying the operation of the order dated 27.09.2011.

16.         The Court below became fauctus officio and he cannot pass such order affecting the earlier order which is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

17.         There is no provision of law to file objection by the judgment debtor before in the executing Court because section 47 was omitted in the year 1983 and the judgment debtor cannot file any objection in an execution case and, as such, the order passed on 02.11.2011 and the order passed on 27.11.2011 are not tenable in law and both the orders are liable to be set aside for the ends of justice.

18.         Mr. Moshaffor Hossain Sarder, D.A.G with Mr. S. Rashed Jahangir, D.A.G appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the executing Court accepting the calculation has committed serious error of law beyond the judgment passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002 and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He took us through the exhibit 3 a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Division in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002 and specifically drawn up our attention in the discussion and decision which are as follows:

“From the above discussion the moot question is whether the plaintiff entitled to the relief claimed. We have already found that the plaintiff has invested huge amount in construction of the said project and the plaintiff could not be able to proceed with the further construction due to the fault of the Engineer and Officials of the Defendants. Earlier one M/s Create Constructions Limited also removed.

From the plaint it appears that the plaintiff claimed the money including interest as stated in the schedule of the plaint.

Under section 73 of the Contract Act we find that the plaintiff is not entitled to the interest as stated No. 3 of the schedule of the plaint on the aforesaid investment amounting to Taka 33,25,670.00 at the rate of 15% per annum for 3 years. It has been held in he case of M/s A.Z. Company, Karachi Vs. Messers S.Kaula Bukhsh Muhammad Bashir, Karachi reported  in 17 DLR (SC)-404 that the award of interest generally not payable for damages for breach of contract. If it is not specifically made in the contract. It has been held in the case of M/s Amin Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. A.R.N.G reported in 28 DLR(AD)-76 that Section 73 of the Contract Act says that the loss or damages towards compensation may be claimed in the event of breach. The plaintiff may recover the loss and damages for the breach of contract and defaulting party must pay the loss and damages and compensation and their earnest money amounting to Taka 1,25,670/= value of the materials and cost of actual work done 32,000/= and compensation for loss of profit @ 15% of Tender amount of Taka 65,50,822.25 which amounting to Taka 9,82,623.34.

Since we have already found that the loss and damages caused due to fault of the Defendant-Appellant the penalty imposed upon the plaintiff are not sustainable in law and the plaintiff committed no fault and penal action cannot be imposed upon the plaintiff. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby upheld with the modification that the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest upon the invested  amount of Taka 17,32,258.37.

The appeal, is therefore, dismissed with the above modification. The contesting Defendant-Appellants are hereby directed to pay the plaintiff decreetal amount except the interest as claimed by the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of decree failing which the plaintiff-Respondents are at liberty to realize the amount in due process of the Court.”

19.         In support of his submissions he cited the decision reported in 15 BLD (AD)-51, 42-DLR (AD)-294, AIR-1987-Patha-133.

20.         We have anxiously considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of the respective parties. The instant revisional applications arises challenging the legality and propriety of order No. 65 dated 02.11.2011 and order No. 66 dated 27.11.2011 passed by Joint District Judge, 3rd Court in Money Decree Execution Case No. 11 of 2001 and thereby staying the operation of order No. 61 dated 27.09.2011.

21.         The moot question before us whether the learned Joint District Judge in passing the impugned order No. 65 dated 27.11.2011 and impugned order No. 66 dated 27.11.2011 are justified in view of judgment and decree passed in money suit No. 13 of 1986 which was modified by this Division in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002.

22.         Considering the facts and circumstances and judgment dated 21.01.2001 passed in money suit No. 13 of 1986 and judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002 it is clearly divulged  that on the earlier occasion the judgment of the trial Court has been affirmed by the High Court Division with modification which has been tested before the appellate Division including review application however, the Judgment dated 6 and 9 July 2006 passed by the High Court Division was upheld by the appellate Division.

23.         From the materials on record of Money Decree Execution case No. 11 of 2001 it appears that the present dispute has been arisen from the order No. 61 dated 29.09.2011 wherein the Executing Court on an application of the decree holder fixed the realisable money from the judgment debtor amounting Tk. 23,99,23660.06 (twenty three crore, ninety nine lac, twenty three thousand, six hundred sixty taka and zero six poisha). The judgment debtor against the said order preferred another revisional application being Civil Revision No. 365 of 2012 wherein they prayed for setting aside the impugned order No. 61 dated 27.09.2011 and order No. 67 dated 16.01.2012 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, Dhaka in Money Decree Execution case No. 11 of 2001 arising out of money suit No. 13 of 1986 wherein Court directed the judgment debtor to pay Tk. 23,99,23660.06 (twenty three crore ninety nine lac twenty three thousand six hundred sixty taka and zero six poisha).

24.         The facts as has been derived from the revisional application being No. 365 of 2012 it is revealed that facts are same and parties are also same. So, we are not inclined to reiterate the same facts once again. The grounds set forth in the revisional application and submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of the respective parties and narrative of the counter affidavits it is clearly manifested that both the parties are litigating from 1986. However, the litigation although ended once up to the appellate Division but it has started again through Money Execution  Case No. 11 of 2001.

25.         In the mean time Mr. A.B.M Mortuza, the managing Director of the company M/s Eastern Builders Ltd. died in the year 2009. But unfortunately till now dispute has not been resolved paying the deecrital amount.

26.         Mr. Jahanigr Rashed, the learned D.A.G appearing in the revisional application No. 365 of 2012 has submitted that the Executing Court committed an error of law resulting in an error in the decision in passing the order dated 16.01.2012 directing the judgment debtor pay the amount of  Tk. 23,99,23,666.06 on 20.02.2012 which clearly occasioned failure of justice.

27.         As the execution court was pleased to fix the matter on 23.02.2011 for taking further hearing of the parties for proper calculation but the same court without going to that point passed the impugned judgment order No. 61 dated 27.09.2011  and subsequently order No. 67 dated 16.01.2012 and, as such, committed an error in the decision occasioning failure of  justice.

28.         As the Executing Court allowed the petitioner to file written objection against the re calculation of the amount and the matter was fixed on 20.02.12  for holding hearing but in the meantime the opposite party came to the Hon’ble High Court Division and file Civil Revision No. 4838 of 2011 and obtained the order of stay for 2(two) months and, as such, the petitioner have been deprived form getting chance of hearing and, as such, an opportunity or scope may kindly be given to the petitioner by the Hon’ble Court to place his case for ends of justice because on earlier occasion the High Court Division in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002 on hearing both the sides modified the decree of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the security amount of Tk. 1,25,670/- and for the amount of works done accordingly to Tk. 32,00,000 and profit of Tk. 9,82,623.34 which is in total comes to 43,08293.34 but the Executing Court committed an error of law in the decision occasioning failure of justice in passing the order to pay Tk. 23,99,23,666.66 to the plaintiff decree holder without complying the dictum of the High Court Division.

29.         The Executing Court committed an error of law in the decision occasioning failure of justice in allowing interest as claimed by the decree holder ignoring the judgment and decree passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002.

30.         The Executing Court erred in law in passing the decision occasioning failure of justice in holding that the judgment debtor has not filed any written objection against the claim of the amount and also against the re calculation of the amount at the instance of the decree holder. 

31.         We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties in both the revisional applications and grounds set forth therein. We are of the view that the judgment and decree passed by this Division in First Appeal No. 245 of 2002 is binding upon both the parties as well as the Executing Court. However, we find that in the Execution Case the learned Judge by his order No. 61 dated 27.09.2011 accept the calculation submitted by the decree holder and thereby directed to pay the Tk. 23,99,23660.06 (twenty three crore, ninety nine lac, twenty three thousand, six hundred sixty taka and zero six poisha) from which the instant two revisional applications had arose.

32.         We have perused and considered the application dated 11.07.2010 by dint of which the trial Court fixed the amount of tk. 23,99,23660.06 (twenty three crore, ninety nine lac, twenty three thousand, six hundred sixty taka and zero six poisha) it has been contended by Mr. A.B.M Bayejid, the learned Advocate for the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 4838 of 2011 that on earlier occasion the opposite party No. 3 on an application withdraw the amount as order passed by the Court below agreeing to deposit Tk. 10,46,49,977.55 (ten crore, forty six lac, forty nine thousand, nine hundred seventy seven taka and fifty five poisha). So, according by Mr. Bayejid, the learned Advocate for the opposite party pointed that the opposite party No. 3 admitted the claim of the petitioner up to Tk. 10 crore and odds. Now they cannot deny such admission. The submission advanced by Mr. Bayejid in respect of Tk. 10 crore admitting by the opposite party No. 3 does not seem us convincing rather, it appears that the Court modified the order of attachment directing the opposite party No. 3 for keeping deposit Tk. 10 Crore and odds they can operate the bank account.

33.         Now, we are to decide whether the application for calculation of money by the decree holder whether justified in view of the judgment of the High Court Division passed in First Appeal No. 245 of 2001. We have gone through the judgment dated 6 and 9 January, 2001 wherefrom it is crystal clear that their lordships decided the facts and law in the earlier occasion at the time disposal of the above mentioned First  Appeal. In view of precedent to the case of M/s A.Z. company, Karachi Vs. M/s S. Kaula Baksha Muhammad Bashir Karachi  reported in 17 DLR (S.C) 404 and M/S Amin Jute Mills Ltd.Vs ARNG reported  in 28 DLR (AD)-76 wherein it has been settled that in view of provision of section 73 of the contract Act the appeal was allowed in part modifying the judgment of the trial Court which are as follows:

“The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby upheld with the modification that the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest upon the invested amount of Taka 17,32,258.37(seventeen lac, thirty two thousand, two hundred fifty eight and thirty seven poisha).

The appeal is therefore dismissed with the above modification. the contesting Defendant-Appellants are hereby directed to pay the plaintiff the decreetal amount except the interest as claimed by the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of decree failing which the plaintiff –respondents are at liberty to realize the amount in due process of the Court.”

34.         Therefore, we find that the impugned order No. 61 dated 27.09.2011 cannot be sustained in law as the calculation given by the decree holder is extraneous and superfluous as well as beyond the decree. We are of the considered view that the Executing Court cannot calculate the interest in the instant Execution Case in violation the dictum of the appellate Court as decided earlier occasion up to Hon’ble Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. More so, it is well settle maxim of law as enunciated by the apex Court that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. So, in calculating the interest in the instant Execution Case the Executing Court committed an error occasioning failure of justice.

35.         Therefore, we find merit in the Rule of Civil Revision No. 365 of 2012.

36.         In the result the Rule is made absolute.

37.         On contra, in the above facts and circumstance and discussions made hereinabove we are of the considered view that the claim as calculated by the petitioner in Execution Case and claimed in the Civil Revision No. 4838 of 2011 cannot be sustained in law.

38.         Thus, the Rule of Civil Revision No. 4838 of 2011 bears no merit.

39.         In the result, the Rule of Civil Revision No. 4838 of 2011 is discharged.

40.         The order of stay granted earlier is hereby recalled and shall stand vacated.

41.         However, the opposite party No. 3 by supplementary affidavit deposited the cheque of an amount of Tk. 43,08,293.34 (forty three lac, eight thousand two hundred ninety three taka and thirty four poisha) according to the judgment of the High Court Division passed in First Appeal No. 245 of 2011 admitting the judgment in favour of the Eastern Builders Ltd. The opposite party company M/S Eastern Builders Ltd. of Civil Revision No. 365 of 2012 will be entitled to encash the above cheque bearing No. N 2103017 dated 11.4.2018 through current Account No. 105 (20503110100010517) lying with Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd., Motijheel Branch, Dhaka. However, the Manager of the Bank is directed to allow the encashment of the cheque of the money after ascertaining the identity of the legally constituted Managing Director as per provision of Company Act. It may be mentioned here that cheque number is corrected vide order dated 12.4.2018.

42.         The office is directed to send the cheque to the Executing Court for taking necessary step at once without any delay. The Executing Court is further directed to deposit the cheque No. N 2103017 dated 11.4.2018 in the aforementioned account of Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited, Motijheel Branch, Dhaka forthwith on receipt of this judgment.

43.         Office is directed to communicate the judgment at once to the Executing Court. The Executing Court is directed to send a attested photo copy of the judgment to the Manager, Islami Bank, Bangladesh Limited Motijheel Branch for necessary action 

         Ed.  


Civil Revision No. 4838 of 2011