(From previous issue) :
The learned Advocate further submits that the respondent No. 3 is a bonafide purchaser for value thorough the auction sale held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law and, as such, he has already acquired right which cannot be frustrated by filing a separate suit in the Civil Court. The learned Advocate has relied on the case decision reported in Abdul Jalil vs Islamic Bank Ltd Bangladesh 53 DLR (AD) 12 and to put an end to the frivolous litigation in order to give effect to the actual sprit of the Special Law.
10. We have gone through the impugned judgment, plaint of the suit for declaration, application for rejection of the plaint and other documents available on record.
11. Evidently the Plaint has been rejected under Order VII, rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that section 18(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 stands as a legal bar to interfere any suit of this nature by any Civil Court. section 18(2) of the said Ain runs as follows:
“??? ?????????, ??? ????? ???????????? ????????, ?? ????? ???? ??????, ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?????, ??? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??, ??? ?????????-??????, ????-?????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ????? ???????? ( ???-???) ?? ?????????? (??????? ?????) ??????????? ????? ?????? ??”?
(Underline is made by us)
12. Clearly the aforesaid section puts restriction on the borrower to file any suit in the Artha Rin Adalat over the loan related matter of the financial institution.
13. But the instant suit for declaration was not filed in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain constituted under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. So, this section has no manner of application for the purpose of rejection of plaint in this case.
14. Mr Taz Mohammad, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 also concedes to the submission of Mr Probir Neogi in this respect. But he has strenuously argued that the suit is actually barred under Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and according to his contention, mere misquoting of section cannot prevent the Court from upholding plaint rejection order when the plaint is found non-maintainable by any other provision of law.
15. Accepting the contention of Mr Taz Mohammad, let it be examined whether section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is a legal bar for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule II (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
16. Section 12(8) of the said Ain may be
quoted below for ready reference:
“?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???, ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????, ??????, ????????????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ¯’??? ?? ?¯’??? ???????? ?????? ??? ????, ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?”???? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?
??? ???? ???? ??, ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????????-?? ??????? ?????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ????????
17. It is admitted in the plaint that the plaintiff received loan from the defendant-Bank against mortgage of his land property and he also gave authority to the bank to sell the mortgaged property for the purpose of realisation of dues by executing a separate registered Power of Attorney on the same date. When such authority to sell the mortgaged land is given by the borrower, the Bank naturally has become legally empowered to transfer the land for the purpose of realisation of the loan and section 12(8) of the said Ain, 2003 operates, as a clear bar to challenge the auction sale in any manner as the auction purchaser acquired absolute right, title and interest to the land in question by operation of law. In this case, the respondent No. 3 Robiul Awal already purchased the mortgaged land in auction sale held on 16-7-2009, which is called in question in the suit of the plaintiff before the Civil Court.
18. It appears from the plaint that the auction sale was called in question merely on the ground that it was held before expiry of the stipulated 15 days from the date of publishing auction tender notice on 1-7-2009 and, as such, the auction was held in violation of sections 34(1) & 33(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. It appears that if the date of publishing tender notice is taken to be inclusive of the specified 15 days, then apparently such allegation does not stand at all. Even if there is any procedural defect or illegality in the auction sale process, the borrower can at best file a suit claiming compensation from the Bank according to the provision of Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 as quoted above, but he is not in position to challenge the very auction sale in any manner in view of the above mentioned proviso to the Section 12(8). Moreover, apparently we do not find any acceptable ground to challenge the auction sale. So the present suit for declaration challenging the legal auction sale is barred under Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. We have also perused the cited case of Md Mozammel Hoque vs Sonali Bank 15 BLD (AD) 35 where a suit challenging the decree of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain was found maintainable in a very exceptional circumstances. The relevant part of the finding may be quoted below:
“When the petitioner’s allegation of nonservice of summons of the suit before the Artha Rin Adalat is correct, his remedy of a separate suit to challenge the decree is not barred under the facts an circumstances of the case, provided his remedies under the Artha Rin Adalat Act stood barred at the time of the filing of the suit for no fault of his own”.
19. Evidently there is no such a extraordinary situation in this case. Actually no suit was filed by the Bank for recovery of any loan in this case. The question of fraudulent suppression of summons does not arise here. Rather the Bank had, to sell the mortgaged property in accordance with the Section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. The aforesaid citation, therefore, has no manner of application here in this case.
20. So far jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 is concerned, we hold the view that since there is specific restriction in Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, which is a special law, to challenge auction sale by filing any suit, the question of lenient construction of the said law does not arise. The Special Law enacted for certain purpose and it shall always prevail over the general law. On the question ouster of Civil Court’s Jurisdiction, the cited case of Mohammad Juljikar vs Abul Kalam Chowdhury 42 DLR (AD) 83 and AIR, 2003 SC 2696 as has been referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellant, are not applicable in the instant case. Rather we hold the view that the suit of the plaintiff as has been framed is not at all maintainable in view of the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 as already discuss above; and that being the legal position, the case of Abdul Jalil vs Islamic Bank Ltd Bangladesh reported in 53 DLR (AD) 12 as referred to in the impugned judgment appears to be appropriate having binding effect in this case.
21. Considering all aspects, we hold the view that the suit of the plaintiff being barred under Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, rejection of plaint is justified Under Oruer VII, rule 11 (d) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So, the impugned judgment and decree may also be affirmed with the aforesaid modification by putting the correct section of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
22. In the result, First Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is maintained with the modification that the suit is barred by under Section 12(8) and not section 18(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Accordingly, the connected Civil Rule No. 605(F) of 2010 is discharged and the ad-interim order dated 10-11-2010 directing the parties to maintain status-quo stands vacated.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of the judgment to the Court below immediately.
(Concluded)
The learned Advocate further submits that the respondent No. 3 is a bonafide purchaser for value thorough the auction sale held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law and, as such, he has already acquired right which cannot be frustrated by filing a separate suit in the Civil Court. The learned Advocate has relied on the case decision reported in Abdul Jalil vs Islamic Bank Ltd Bangladesh 53 DLR (AD) 12 and to put an end to the frivolous litigation in order to give effect to the actual sprit of the Special Law.
10. We have gone through the impugned judgment, plaint of the suit for declaration, application for rejection of the plaint and other documents available on record.
11. Evidently the Plaint has been rejected under Order VII, rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that section 18(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 stands as a legal bar to interfere any suit of this nature by any Civil Court. section 18(2) of the said Ain runs as follows:
“??? ?????????, ??? ????? ???????????? ????????, ?? ????? ???? ??????, ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?????, ??? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??, ??? ?????????-??????, ????-?????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ????? ???????? ( ???-???) ?? ?????????? (??????? ?????) ??????????? ????? ?????? ??”?
(Underline is made by us)
12. Clearly the aforesaid section puts restriction on the borrower to file any suit in the Artha Rin Adalat over the loan related matter of the financial institution.
13. But the instant suit for declaration was not filed in the Artha Rin Adalat Ain constituted under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. So, this section has no manner of application for the purpose of rejection of plaint in this case.
14. Mr Taz Mohammad, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 also concedes to the submission of Mr Probir Neogi in this respect. But he has strenuously argued that the suit is actually barred under Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and according to his contention, mere misquoting of section cannot prevent the Court from upholding plaint rejection order when the plaint is found non-maintainable by any other provision of law.
15. Accepting the contention of Mr Taz Mohammad, let it be examined whether section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 is a legal bar for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule II (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
16. Section 12(8) of the said Ain may be
quoted below for ready reference:
“?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???, ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????, ??????, ????????????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ¯’??? ?? ?¯’??? ???????? ?????? ??? ????, ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?”???? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?
??? ???? ???? ??, ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????????-?? ??????? ?????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ????????
17. It is admitted in the plaint that the plaintiff received loan from the defendant-Bank against mortgage of his land property and he also gave authority to the bank to sell the mortgaged property for the purpose of realisation of dues by executing a separate registered Power of Attorney on the same date. When such authority to sell the mortgaged land is given by the borrower, the Bank naturally has become legally empowered to transfer the land for the purpose of realisation of the loan and section 12(8) of the said Ain, 2003 operates, as a clear bar to challenge the auction sale in any manner as the auction purchaser acquired absolute right, title and interest to the land in question by operation of law. In this case, the respondent No. 3 Robiul Awal already purchased the mortgaged land in auction sale held on 16-7-2009, which is called in question in the suit of the plaintiff before the Civil Court.
18. It appears from the plaint that the auction sale was called in question merely on the ground that it was held before expiry of the stipulated 15 days from the date of publishing auction tender notice on 1-7-2009 and, as such, the auction was held in violation of sections 34(1) & 33(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. It appears that if the date of publishing tender notice is taken to be inclusive of the specified 15 days, then apparently such allegation does not stand at all. Even if there is any procedural defect or illegality in the auction sale process, the borrower can at best file a suit claiming compensation from the Bank according to the provision of Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 as quoted above, but he is not in position to challenge the very auction sale in any manner in view of the above mentioned proviso to the Section 12(8). Moreover, apparently we do not find any acceptable ground to challenge the auction sale. So the present suit for declaration challenging the legal auction sale is barred under Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. We have also perused the cited case of Md Mozammel Hoque vs Sonali Bank 15 BLD (AD) 35 where a suit challenging the decree of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain was found maintainable in a very exceptional circumstances. The relevant part of the finding may be quoted below:
“When the petitioner’s allegation of nonservice of summons of the suit before the Artha Rin Adalat is correct, his remedy of a separate suit to challenge the decree is not barred under the facts an circumstances of the case, provided his remedies under the Artha Rin Adalat Act stood barred at the time of the filing of the suit for no fault of his own”.
19. Evidently there is no such a extraordinary situation in this case. Actually no suit was filed by the Bank for recovery of any loan in this case. The question of fraudulent suppression of summons does not arise here. Rather the Bank had, to sell the mortgaged property in accordance with the Section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. The aforesaid citation, therefore, has no manner of application here in this case.
20. So far jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 is concerned, we hold the view that since there is specific restriction in Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, which is a special law, to challenge auction sale by filing any suit, the question of lenient construction of the said law does not arise. The Special Law enacted for certain purpose and it shall always prevail over the general law. On the question ouster of Civil Court’s Jurisdiction, the cited case of Mohammad Juljikar vs Abul Kalam Chowdhury 42 DLR (AD) 83 and AIR, 2003 SC 2696 as has been referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellant, are not applicable in the instant case. Rather we hold the view that the suit of the plaintiff as has been framed is not at all maintainable in view of the provisions of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 as already discuss above; and that being the legal position, the case of Abdul Jalil vs Islamic Bank Ltd Bangladesh reported in 53 DLR (AD) 12 as referred to in the impugned judgment appears to be appropriate having binding effect in this case.
21. Considering all aspects, we hold the view that the suit of the plaintiff being barred under Section 12(8) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, rejection of plaint is justified Under Oruer VII, rule 11 (d) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So, the impugned judgment and decree may also be affirmed with the aforesaid modification by putting the correct section of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
22. In the result, First Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is maintained with the modification that the suit is barred by under Section 12(8) and not section 18(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. Accordingly, the connected Civil Rule No. 605(F) of 2010 is discharged and the ad-interim order dated 10-11-2010 directing the parties to maintain status-quo stands vacated.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of the judgment to the Court below immediately.
(Concluded)
