Hosne Ara Begum and another Vs. Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited, 53 DLR (2001) (AD) 9

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 914 of 1998

Judge: Latifur Rahman ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Mahmudul Islam,,

Citation: 53 DLR (2001) (AD) 9

Case Year: 2000

Appellant: Hosne Ara Begum

Respondent: Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited

Subject: Constitutional Law,

Delivery Date: 2000-7-17

 
Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Latifur Rahman CJ
Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J
AMM Rahman J
Kazi Ebadul Hoque J
 
Hosne Ara Begum and another
.............Petitioners
Vs.
Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited
.............Respondents
 
Judgment
July 17, 2000.
 
The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 109
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115
In a case where a statute bars entertainment of a revision the exercise of supervisory power under Article 109 of the Constitution is not available……..(7)
 
Case Referred to-
Sultana Jute Mills Limited and others vs. Agrani Bank and others, 14 BLD (AD) 196 = 46 DLR (AD) 174.
 
Lawyers Involved: 
Mahmudul Islam, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record—For the Petitioners. 
Md. Nazrul Islam, Advocate, instructed by Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record—For the Respondent. 
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 914 of 1998.
(From the Jugment and order dated 15-6-1998 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2038 of 1994). 
 
JUDGMENT

Latifur Rahman CJ.
 
1. This petition by the defendant-petitioners is against the judgment and order dated 15-6-1998 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2038 of 1994 discharging the Rule.
 
2. The material question that was for considering before the High Court Division was, whether a revision or writ petition will lie against an interlocutory order of Artha Rin Adalat.
 
3. The facts to narrate, in brief, are that, the plaintiff-Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited filed Money Suit No. 60 of 1991 in Artha Rin Adalat No. 3 of Dhaka against the petitioners for realisation of a sum of Taka 26,03,073,92 paisa. The said suit on transfer to Artha Rin Adalat No. 4 at Dhaka was renumbered as Money Suit No. 143 of 1993.
 
4. It appears that on 17-3-1993 the case was fixed for argument and on that date time was taken. Subsequent thereto on 17-7-1993 respondents filed an application for recalling PW 1. The prayer was allowed. After closure of the evidence the case was fixed for argument on 7-8-1993. Again on 28-2-1994 the case was argued in part and it was adjourned to 9-3-1994 for further argument. Thereafter ultimately argument was concluded on 21-3-1994 and the case was fixed for delivery of judgment on 29-3-1994. Then again the case was fixed for further argument on 9-5-1994. One day prior to that the respondent filed an application for recalling PW 1 again to prove certain documents as through mistake certain valuable documents relating to loan had not been proved. The learned Judge of Artha Rin Adalat allowed the application of the respondent and fixed the case on 11-6-1994 for further hearing of the suit.
 
5. In the background of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, Mr. Mahmudul Islam, learned Advocate appearing for defendant- petitioners, submits that under section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat filing of a revision against an order of Artha Rin Adalat before the High Court Division is barred but under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court Division in exercise of Article 109 of the Constitution, the High Court Division was competent in the facts of the case to entertain the revision when the conduct of the plaintiff was not fair.
 
6. From the facts as has been narrated it is palpably clear that the case was fixed on several dates and for securing the ends of justice and for proper adjudication of the issue the trial Judge exercised his judicial discretion and deferred the date of argument and ultimately fixed the case for further hearing.
 
7. In the case of Sultana Jute Mills Limited and others vs. Agrani Bank and others, 14 BLD (AD) 196 = 46 DLR (AD) 174 this Division has clearly held that revision does not lie against an order of Artha Rin Adalat. It may be mentioned here that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 109 of the Constitution the High Court Division has got power to call for any records pen before the Subordinate Court but then in a case where provision of filing of a revision is barred under special statute I am afraid the argument of Mahmudul Islam that revision lies is not entertainable. There are various decisions from Indian jurisdiction where it has been held that for fundamental basic principle of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in the procedure of law has crept in or where the order was passed resulting in manifest injustice the High Court Division in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction can interfere, even if no appeal or revision has been filed. But in a case where a statute bars entertainment of a revision the exercise of supervisory power under Article 109 of the Constitution is not available. 
 
For the following reason stated above, the petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.