High Court Division
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Md Ashfaqul Islam J
Md Ashraful Kamal J
Mohammad Ali…………..
………………Petitioner
Vs
Judge, Artha Rin Adalat and another ………Respondents
Judgment
March 12th, 2014.
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2010)
Sections 22 and 24
Adalat should remember that after amendment of section 22 in the year 2010 mediation has been made mandatory on the part of the Adalat itself. When amended Section 22 be read together with Section 24 of the Ain it makes the proposition more clear. Now the law stands that right after filing of the written statement, the duty is incumbent upon the Court to initiate mediation. .. …. (6)
Lokman Karim with Md Rafiqul Islam, Advocates –
For the Petitioner.
Md Faridul Islam, Advocate -For the Respondent No.3.
Judgment
Md Ashfaqul Islam J: At the instance of the petitioner, Mohammad Ali, this Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order No. 14 dated 17-4-2013 passed by the learned Judge. Artha. Rin Adalat, No.1, Chittagong in Artha Rin Suit No.22 of 2012 shall not be declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
2. The background leading to the Rule:-, in short, is that the respondent No.2 Prime Bank Llimited, Head Office Motijheel Commercial Area, Dhaka and Prime Bank Limited Jubilee Road Branch, Chittagong jointly as plaintiff on 22-3-2012 filed Artha Rin Suit No.22 of 2012 before the Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong (hereinafter referred to as Adalat) for recovery of outstanding dues against the petitioner along with other 10 (ten) defendants. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement on 24-7-2012 in that suit. Defendant Nos. 3 to 11 also contested the suit by filing separate written statements.
3. On 28-8-2012 the petitioner (defendant No. 2 in the suit) made an application before the Adalat for appointment of mediator for mediation which was allowed by the Adalat on the same date and one Mr Mahmudur Rahman, Advocate of the Bar was appointed mediator. Thereafter, the Adalat by order No. 12 dated 23-1-2012 observed that the parties in the suit were not supplied with the copy of the order dated 9-9-2012 and accordingly ordered to supply the same to the respective parties. On 17-4-2013 by the order impugned against the Adalat rejected the application by which the mediator himself asked for some time to submit his report. It is at this stage the petitioner moved this Division and obtained the present Rule and order of stay.
4. Mr Lokman Kabir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the proximity of the orders as discussed above is considered it would give a clear picture that the Adalat absolutely misdirected itself and without giving any reason passed the impugned order which cannot be sustained legally.
5. Mr Md Faridul Islam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 bank also candidly submits that the impugned order is not at all in keeping with the relevant provision of law and on that score this Rule should be discharged with an order (or making the mediation effective.
6. That being the situation we have considered the submissions of both sides. The order impugned against is not at all speaking order. It has been passed in a slip shod manner The Adalat should remember that after amendment of section 22 in the year 2010 mediation has been made mandatory on the part of the Adalat itself. Moreso when amended section 22 be read together with section 24 of the Ain it makes the proposition more clear. Now the law stands that right after filing of the written statement, the duty is incumbent upon the Court to initiate mediation. Regardless of any application whatsoever from the parties. Here in the instant case though there was an initiative and the court also allowed for medication but all of a sudden by impugned order the matter was stopped which does not make any sense. We cannot reconcile why this was done by the Adalat.
7. However, under this scenario the Rule is made absolute. The order impugned against is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no effect and, as such, setaside. The adalat has been directed to arrange for an effective mediation in accordance with law forthwith.
Communicate this order at once.
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Md Ashfaqul Islam J
Md Ashraful Kamal J
Mohammad Ali…………..
………………Petitioner
Vs
Judge, Artha Rin Adalat and another ………Respondents
Judgment
March 12th, 2014.
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2010)
Sections 22 and 24
Adalat should remember that after amendment of section 22 in the year 2010 mediation has been made mandatory on the part of the Adalat itself. When amended Section 22 be read together with Section 24 of the Ain it makes the proposition more clear. Now the law stands that right after filing of the written statement, the duty is incumbent upon the Court to initiate mediation. .. …. (6)
Lokman Karim with Md Rafiqul Islam, Advocates –
For the Petitioner.
Md Faridul Islam, Advocate -For the Respondent No.3.
Judgment
Md Ashfaqul Islam J: At the instance of the petitioner, Mohammad Ali, this Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order No. 14 dated 17-4-2013 passed by the learned Judge. Artha. Rin Adalat, No.1, Chittagong in Artha Rin Suit No.22 of 2012 shall not be declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
2. The background leading to the Rule:-, in short, is that the respondent No.2 Prime Bank Llimited, Head Office Motijheel Commercial Area, Dhaka and Prime Bank Limited Jubilee Road Branch, Chittagong jointly as plaintiff on 22-3-2012 filed Artha Rin Suit No.22 of 2012 before the Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong (hereinafter referred to as Adalat) for recovery of outstanding dues against the petitioner along with other 10 (ten) defendants. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement on 24-7-2012 in that suit. Defendant Nos. 3 to 11 also contested the suit by filing separate written statements.
3. On 28-8-2012 the petitioner (defendant No. 2 in the suit) made an application before the Adalat for appointment of mediator for mediation which was allowed by the Adalat on the same date and one Mr Mahmudur Rahman, Advocate of the Bar was appointed mediator. Thereafter, the Adalat by order No. 12 dated 23-1-2012 observed that the parties in the suit were not supplied with the copy of the order dated 9-9-2012 and accordingly ordered to supply the same to the respective parties. On 17-4-2013 by the order impugned against the Adalat rejected the application by which the mediator himself asked for some time to submit his report. It is at this stage the petitioner moved this Division and obtained the present Rule and order of stay.
4. Mr Lokman Kabir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the proximity of the orders as discussed above is considered it would give a clear picture that the Adalat absolutely misdirected itself and without giving any reason passed the impugned order which cannot be sustained legally.
5. Mr Md Faridul Islam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 bank also candidly submits that the impugned order is not at all in keeping with the relevant provision of law and on that score this Rule should be discharged with an order (or making the mediation effective.
6. That being the situation we have considered the submissions of both sides. The order impugned against is not at all speaking order. It has been passed in a slip shod manner The Adalat should remember that after amendment of section 22 in the year 2010 mediation has been made mandatory on the part of the Adalat itself. Moreso when amended section 22 be read together with section 24 of the Ain it makes the proposition more clear. Now the law stands that right after filing of the written statement, the duty is incumbent upon the Court to initiate mediation. Regardless of any application whatsoever from the parties. Here in the instant case though there was an initiative and the court also allowed for medication but all of a sudden by impugned order the matter was stopped which does not make any sense. We cannot reconcile why this was done by the Adalat.
7. However, under this scenario the Rule is made absolute. The order impugned against is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no effect and, as such, setaside. The adalat has been directed to arrange for an effective mediation in accordance with law forthwith.
Communicate this order at once.
