BANGLADESH HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION Vs. JAHAN ARA AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by leave, by the Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation from judgment and order dated 5 January, 1995 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1419 of 1993 making the Rule absolute.

(2.) Facts of the case, briefly, are that the appellant-Corporation filed five applications before learned District Judge, Tangail under article 27 of the Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation Order, 1973 (Presidents Order No. 7 of 1973) for the reliefs mentioned therein in respect of the amounts due from the borrower-respondents. When the said applications were pending the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 (Act No IV of 1990), briefly, the Act, was promulgated on 20 January, 1990. Section 9 of the said Act providing for pending suits was substituted by Act No. LI of 1990 with effect from 31-7.1990. At the instance of the appellant, the applications pending before the learned District Judge, Tangail were transferred to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, Tangail which were renumbered as Miscellaneous Case No 1, 2, 6 and 9 of 1992. The respondents filed an application before the learned District Judge praying for withdrawal of the said Misc. cases from the Artha Rin Adalat to the Court of the learned District Judge and disposal of the same according to the provisions of Presidents Order No. 7 of 1973 which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 64 of 1992. After hearing both the parties and considering the relevant provision of law, the learned District Judge dismissed the Misc. Case by his order dated 6-1-93 holding that the Misc. cases pending in the Artha 1 Adalat should be tried and disposed of by that Court. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondents moved the High Court Division in revision and, as already noticed, a Division Bench, by the impugned judgment and order, made the Rule absolute in the revision case. The order of the learned District Judge, Tangail dated 6-1-93 was set aside and it was directed that the Misc. cases pending before the Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, Tangail be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Tangail and heard and disposed of by him (District Judge) according to the provision of Presidents Order No. 7 of 1973.

(3.) Leave to appeal was obtained from the impugned judgment of the High Court Division by the appellant submitting that the High Court Division gave a wrong interpretation of section 5 of the Act without considering the object and purpose of the Act. The proviso to section 5 of the Act, it was submitted, merely saves the special provisions and methods for realisation of loan by financial institutions provided by laws by which they were established but as far as suits are concerned, the Artha Rin Adalat has been given exclusive jurisdiction in sub-clause (1) of section 5. 3. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Rafiqe-ul Huq, learned Counsel for the appellant, elaborated the above submissions with reference to the various sections of the Act including its object and purpose and provisions of other allied laws. According to Mr. Huq, upon a true construction of section 5 of the Act vis-a-vis the special provisions made for realisation of loan under Presidents Order No. 7 of 1973, it is to be held that sub-section (1) of section 5 has impliedly repealed article 27 of Presidents Order No. 7 of 1973 According to him, after the promulgation of the Act and substitution of section 9 thereof by amendment, no proceeding in Court which was heretofore permissible for realisation of loan under article 27 of Presidents Order No. 7 of 1973 would be competent and all such proceedings must be tried and disposed of in the Artha Rin Adalat.