STAR MEDICAL STORE Vs. SUBORDINATE JUDGE, ARTHA RIN ADALAT AND OTHER
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Star Medical Store
Subordinate Judge, Artha Rin Adalat And Other
Click here to view full judgement.
ABU SAYEED AHAMMED,J. -
(1.) This application under Article 102(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh has been filed by one Star Medical Store, represented by its proprietor Md. Habibur Rahman calling upon the respondents Subordinate Judge Court No. 2 and Artha Rin Adalat No. 1 Rangpur and the Manager Uttara Bank, Rangpur Branch, to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree passed ex-parte on 25-10-1990 in Artha Rin Case No. 55 of 1990 and the proceedings of that case should not be declared to have been made without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
(2.) The short facts leading to the dispute as has been stated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner took some loan from the respondent No.2 the Uttara Bank and since the loan could not he paid within the schedule time the said case was filed at first as an ordinary money suit being No.82 of 1982 for realisation of the said loan money. During the pendency of that suit Artha Rin Adalat Ain (Act 51 of 1990) came into effect. The said money suit which was filed on 7-12-1982 was transferred to the Artha Rin Adalat and was renumbered as Artha Rin Case No. 55 of 1990 as per amendment as made by addition of section 9 of the said Act which reads as follows:
....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....
(3.) It can not be denied that the suit was for realisation of loan money received from the Bank being a financial institution by the present petitioner who was defendant in that suit. It is admitted by Mr. Fazlul Karim, the learned Senior Counsel that already execution Case has been filed. At this stage the present writ petition has been filed challenging the propriety and legality of the judgment and decree passed in the said Artha Rin Adalat Case inasmuch as the proceedings of that Case on the ground that as the money suit was filed far as back in the 1982 and as amendment of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain by addition of section 9 was made long after in the year 1990, the said money suit could not be legally treated as an Artha Rin Case and could not be tried in the Artha Rin Adalat and, as such, the proceeding of the Artha Rin Case and the judgment and decree passed therein is illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution and is against the fundamental right of the petitioner as guaranteed by the Constitution and the same has been infringed in view of the terms
[xxx xxx xxx]
has been incorporated in the said amendment and the instant suit was filed in the year 1982, so it is not covered by the amendment and it should have been decided as an ordinary money suit and not as Artha Rin Adalat Case. Mr. Karim further submits that by adding the term
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.