High Court Division
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Sheikh Abdul
Awal J
Shahidul Karim J
Judgment
July 28th, 2015.
Assistant Director, Agricultural Extension, Magura …Plaintiff-Appellant
vs
Sonali Bank, Hat Gopalpur Branch Jhenaidah and others ……Defendant-Respondents*
Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)
Sections 19 & 20
If any party is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Adalat he may prefer appeal against the same as per specific provisions of the Ain and in case of ex-parte decree, the judgment debtor may prefer an application under Section 19 of the Ain, for setting-aside the ex-parte decree upon deposit of certain amount as per the provisions of law. The suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Adalat was expressly barred by specific provisions of both old and new Ain. .. …. (16)
Bhobesh Chandra Sarker, DAG-For the Appellant.
None Appeared-For the Respondents
Judgment
Sheikh Abdul Awal J: This appeal is from the judgment and decree dated-30-11-1995 (decree signed on 3-1-1996) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Magura in Title Suit No.6 of 1995.
2. The relevant facts briefly are that the appellant herein as plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.9 of 1991 in the Court of the then Subordinate judge, 2nd Court, Magura against. Sonali Bank, Hat Gopalpur Branch, Jhenaidah and two others for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1991 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat in Artha Rin Suit No.1 of 1990 is not binding upon the plaintiff appellant and the said suit was subsequently re-numbered on transfer as Suit No.6 of 1995. The plaintiff’s case, in short, is that the defendant No. 1 obtained a decree for an amount of Taka 4,52,713,88 only from the Artha Rin Adalat, Magura in Artha Rin Suit No. 1 of 1990 impleading the plaintiff appellant as defendant No. 3 although the plaintiff was never assigned as Jute Extension Officer, Magura and that he had no connection with the bank loan in question and, as such, the decree passed by the Artha Rin Adalat, Magura exparte against him in Artha Rin Suit No.1 of 1990 is illegal and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff.
3. Defendant Bank contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the material allegations of the plaint contending, inter-alia, that Artha Rin Adalat, Magura committed no illegality in decreeing the Artha Rin Suit against the judgment debtor plaintiff. The suit is barred by law and, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. At the trial both the parties led evidence to prove, their respective cases.
5. The learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Magura after hearing argument of both the parties and on considering the materials on record by the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-11-1995 dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff filed the suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1991 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat, Magura in Artha Rin. Suit No.1 of 1990 which is barred by Section 6 of the Artha Rin Ain, 1990.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned, judgment and decree dated 30-11-1995, the appellant preferred this first appeal.
7. Mr Bhobesh Chandra Sarker, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant on going through impugned judgment and decree together with plaint of the suit finds it difficult to assail the impugned judgment. He, however, submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case; the plaintiff-appellant ought to have filed appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-11-1995 and at ‘this stage the plaintiff-appellant .may be given an opportunity to file appropriate case otherwise, the plaintiff-appellant shall suffer irreparable loss.
8. Heard the learned Deputy Attorney General and perused the record.
9. To cut short the matter at the very outset, we like to quote hereunder the prayer portion of the plaint of the instant Title Suit No. 9 of 1991 which was subsequently re-numbered on transfer as Suit No.6 of 1995, which reads as follows:-
Ò….ev`xcÿ cÖv_©bv K‡ib †h,
(K) AviRxi ewY©Z g‡Z I Kvi‡b †gvKvg gv¸ivi A_© FY Av`vj‡Zi 1/90 A_© FY gvgjvi Bs 28-7-91 Zvs Gi ivq I Bs 4-8-91 Zvwi‡Li wWwµ ev`x c‡ÿi cÖwZ binding ev eva¨Ki b‡n g‡g© weev`xc‡ÿi weiæ‡× ev`x c‡ÿi AbyK~‡j †Nvlbvi wWwµ w`‡Z
(L) hveZxq Av`vjZ e¨‡qi wWwµ w`‡Z-
(M) Law and Equity g‡Z ev`xc‡ÿ Avi †h †Kvb cÖKvi cÖwZKvi cvB‡Z cv‡ib ZvnviI Av‡`k w`‡Z gwR© nq|Ó
10. From the above, it transpires that the plaintiff filed the suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1991 (decree signed on 4-8-1991) passed by the Artha Rin Adalat, Magura in Artha Rin Case No.1 of 1990.
11. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it appears that the trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that the suit is barred by Section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 inasmuch as the plaintiff filed the suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1991 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat, Magura in Artha Rin Suit No.1 of 1990.
12. Now, let us look at the relevant provisions of both the old and new Artha Rin Adalat Ain for having a better view of the dispute in question.
