MOHAMMAD ULLAH,J. - (1.) On an application under Article 102(2) (a)(ii) of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Judgment and Order No. 13 dated 25.4.2013 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Chittagong in Artha Rin Case No. 61 of 2012 rejecting the petitioners application for mediation should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
(2.) By the Rule issuing order dated 20.06.2013, further proceedings of the aforesaid Artha Rin Case was stayed for a period of 3(three) months. It was extended time to time and lastly on 12.01.2014 extended for a further period of 3(three) months from date. Short facts, for the disposal of this Rule, are that the respondent no. 2 Eastern Bank Limited, Agrabad Branch, 33, Agrabad Commercial Area, Chittagong, as plaintiff, instituted Artha Rin Suit No. 61 of 2012 before the Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong against the petitioner and others for recovery of its outstanding dues together with interest thereon of Tk. 16,11,681.89 as on 30.04.2012. The petitioner and other defendants entered appearance in the suit and contested the same by filing written statement denying the material allegations of the plaint. At one stage of the proceeding, particularly when the suit was fixed for further hearing, the defendants including the petitioner filed an application under section 22 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for settling the dispute by the intervention of the mediator under the supervision of the Court. The Artha Rin Adalat, upon hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, by its order dated 25.4.2013, rejected the said application for mediation holding, inter alia, that without consent of both the parties mediation process would not be fruitful. Moreover, the Court was informed that the plaintiff bank expressed its unwillingness to go with the mediation process. Against the said impugned order dated 25.4.2013, the defendant no. 2 approached this Court and obtained the present Rule and order of stay as stated above.
(3.) Mr. Mahfuzur Rahman Roman, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner, drawing our attention to the provision of section 22 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, submits that after amending the said provision of law the mediation process was made mandatory for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties under the supervision of the Court and as such the impugned order rejecting the application for mediation is illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.;