Artha Rin Adalat (Money Loan Court) cases form the backbone of financial recovery in Bangladesh, especially for banks and Non-Bank Financial Institutions (NBFIs) grappling with cheque dishonour and loan defaults. For legal practitioners and credit officers, navigating its procedural maze is a daily challenge.
This analysis breaks down eight critical problems whether you're preparing for the Bar Council exam, drafting a credit recovery report, or providing opinion this structured guide is your practical toolkit.
Why These Cases Are Essential:
· Execution pitfalls under the ARAA, 2003
· Party addition and locus standi issues
· Court fees and registration complications
· Handling third-party claims in auctions
📋 Case At-a-Glance
Problem- 1
A developer company proposed Mr. “Y” to develop his land which he got from
RAJUK by virtue of a lease agreement for 99 years. He informed the developer
company that the title deed of his land had been deposited with the Trust Bank as
equitable mortgage to secure credit facilities. By executing tripartite agreement
dated 26.07.2007 between the developer company, Mr. “Y” and the Trust Bank, the
sale price of the land had been settled. As per the agreement, the developer
company made payment of take six crore to the Trust Bank to make the land owner
free from liability. On receipt of the amount the Trust Bank handed over the title
deed of the land to the developer company. Subsequently, the land owner executed
a General power of Attorney on 25.09.2007 in favor of the developer in order to
facilitate the construction work of multistoried building over the said land and also
for exercising his right relating to that land.
Mr “Y” also took loan from One Bank Limited by mortgaging the same property. The Bank filed Artha Rin Suit No. 7 of 2008 before an Artha Rin Adalat against the land
owner Mr. "Y" claiming take nine crore on 23.01.2008. On the same date the plaintiff
One Bank Limited filed an application for attachment before judgment. The Court
allowed the applications by making attachment before judgment.
After having aware of the order of attachment the developer company filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for addition
of party in the Artha Rin Suit which was rejected by the trial Court vide Order dated
19.01.2009 on the ground that the applicant (i.e. the developer company) had no
locus standi under section 6(5) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
The said order dated 19.01.2009 was challenged by the developer company.
Question:
Whether the order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat in rejecting the application for
addition of party is in accordance with law or not.
Problem- 2
“A” company obtained a loan from a scheduled bank. In due course, the Bank
instituted Money Suit No. 209 of 1997 in an Artha Rin Adalat for recovery of the
loan money amounting to Taka twelve crore. The suit was decreed on 2.5.2005 and
a preliminary decree was drawn up on 24.5.2005. Subsequently, the Bank filed
Artha Execution Case No. 255 of 2005 on 18.07.2005. The executing Court by order
dated 30.10.2005 fixed 12.01.2006 for receiving auction bid, but auction could not
take place on that date i.e. 12.01.2006 as it was a public holiday. Then the record
was placed before the executing Court on 15.01.2006. The Court noted that nobody
144th Refresher_ JDL_OP
===== Page 3 =====
submitted any tender and fixed 09.03.2006 for taking steps under section 33(4)
stating clearly that no tender was dropped on that date. On that date the decree
holder filed an application under section 33(7) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for
a certificate of title to the mortgaged property in its favour. The application was
heard on 31.05.2006 and the same was allowed and the Court passed order for
issuing certificate. In fact, the certificate was issued on 02.08.2006 and on this date
further order was passed to send a copy of the certificate to the concerned SubRegistrar. Thereafter on 29.01.2008 the decree holder Bank filed an application
under Order, XXI, rules 95, 96, 98 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read
with sections 26 and 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 to deliver the actual
possession of the property acquired by it pursuant to the certificate. The Court by
its order dated 26.02.2008 allowed the prayer and issued writ of delivery of
possession fixing 27.04.2008 for the return of the writ of delivery of possession.
Orders dated 31.05.2006 and 26.02.2008 passed by the Artha Rin Adalat are
challenged by “A” company, invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division.
Question
Whether the Artha Rin Adalat, in this case, is justified in passing the orders dated
31.05.2006 and 26.02.2008 and consequently issuing the writ of delivery of
possession.
Problem- 3
In a Sessions case one of the Prosecution Witnesses was declared hostile and.
thereafter he was cross-examined. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the Prosecution Witness gave false evidence in the court and as such he lodged complaint to the concerned Magistrate to proceed against that witness under sections 193/212 of the Penal Code, 1860 for giving false evidence.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance under sections 193/212 of the Penal Code.
At the time of hearing on framing charge, an application was filed on behalf of the
accused to discharge him on the following two grounds:
1. That no complaint for giving false evidence can be entertained before
disposal of the concerned case in which false evidence was allegedly given;
2. That in this case the complaint was lodged in violation of the provisions of
section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 because no inquiry was
held before lodging the complaint.
The learned advocate on behalf of the accused has argued that the learned Sessions Judge should not have lodged the complaint before completing the trial. He has
pointed out that by this time the trial of the session’s case is completed and the
144th Refresher _JDJ_OP
===== Page 4 =====
accused persons of that case were convicted. So, according to him, the evidence of
the accused P.W. had no bearing in the result of the Sessions case. He has also
submitted that before lodging complaint the Judge in whose court false evidence
was given was required to hold an inquiry but in this case the learned Sessions
Judge did not hold any inquiry.
Questions
(a) Whether lodging of the complaint before conclusion of the trial of the
sessions case was proper and legal.
(b) Whether lodging of the complaint without holding any formal inquiry was
legal.
Problem- 4
Mr “X” took loan from a scheduled bank but failed to repay the same as per
stipulation and consequently on 28.4.2004 the loan granting bank filed Artha Rin
Suit No. 574 of 2004 in an Artha Rin Adalat for recovery of take two crore against
Mr. “X” and others. On the date of filing of that suit the plaintiff-bank could not pay
the requisite court fee and prayed for time. The Adalat allowed that prayer and
fixed 11.5.2004 for filing the deficit court fee. On 11.5.2004 the plaintiff bank paid
the deficit court fee. Mr. “X” appeared in the Suit and filed written statement and
ultimately the trial was commenced. At that stage, on 25.9.2008, the defendant filed
an application under section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for
allowing him to pay the principal loan along with 200% of the principal loan amount
as interest as per section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. The learned Judge of
the Adalat by the order dated 14.10.2008 rejected that application stating that there
was no scope to consider the said application as this suit is instituted before the
provision of section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 came into force on
01.05.2004.
Being aggrieved by that order dated 14.10.2008 passed in Artha Rin Suit 574 of
2004 the defendant petitioner filed a Writ petition before the High Court Division
and obtained Rule.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that since according to the section 6(2) of
the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 the plaintiff requires to pay the ad valorem court fee
along with the plaint and since in this case the ad valorem court fee was not paid on
the date of filing of the plaint but it was paid on a subsequent date i.e. on 11.5.2004
the plaint should be deemed to have been registered on that date i.e. on 11.5.2004
and in the circumstances the borrower-defendant is entitled to get benefit of
section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
Contrary argument was that since the suit was filed on 28.4.2004 the provision of
section 47 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 was not applicable to this suit and that
144th Refresher _JDJ_OP
===== Page 5 =====
the provision of sub-section (2) of the section 6 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
being merely a guideline and directory provision only the plaintiff is at liberty to
pay the ad valorem court fee within the period prescribed by the court.
Questions
a) Is the registration of the Artha Rin Suit in question, in the given facts and
circumstances, legal? Which will be the proper date of registration of the suit
in question?
b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the benefit of section 47 of the Artha
Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
Problem- 5
An Artha Rin Adalat decreed a suit for an amount of taka ten lac. In execution of
that decree, the decree holder took steps to sell the property of the judgment debtor
in auction but failed due to various reasons. Then the decree holder filed an
application under section 33(7) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 praying for an
order vesting the title of the concerned property of the judgment debtor in his
favour and for issuing a certificate to that effect and treating the certificate as a
title deed in respect of the property. The court issued the certificate. Thereafter,
the decree holder went to the premises to take possession of the property to which
the judgment-debtor resisted. Then the decree holder made a prayer under Order
21, Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with section 57 of the Artha
Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for deploying police force for taking possession of the
property. The prayer was rejected on the ground that with the issuance of
certificate title has been vested to the decree holder, the execution case was
disposed of finally and, therefore, there is no scope of taking any other steps for
delivery of possession of the property to the decree holder.
Question
Whether the rejection of the prayer for deploying police force for delivery of
possession was proper.
Problem- 6
‘A’ filed a suit for specific performance of contract alleging that ‘B’ entered
into a contract with him for sale of the suit land and after receiving advance
of Tk. two lac executed a bainapatra on 10.05.2014 and ultimately refused to
execute and register a sale deed in his favour. ‘B’ contested the suit mainly
contending that the bainapatra was false and he neither entered into any
contract with ‘A’ nor received any amount from him as advance.
The plaintiff led oral evidence and proved the contract and payment of
advance. The defendant though denied execution of the bainapatra did not
take any step for examining the signature in the bainapatra by a handwriting
144th Refresher _JDL OP
===== Page 6 =====
expert. The court did not itself also compare the signatures. However, the suit
was decreed.
Then an appeal was filed by the defendant taking the main ground that without
ascertaining the genuineness of the signature in the bainapatra, the court
should not have decreed the suit.
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the suit should be sent back to the
trial court on remand for ascertaining the genuineness of the signature either
by comparing the signatures by the court itself or through expert examination.
Question:
In view of such argument, if the appeal is before you, shall you send back
the suit onremand or shall you decide the appeal on merit? Give reasons.
Problem- 7
A scheduled bank instituted Artha Rin Suit No. 05 of 1997 in an Artha Rin Adalat for
recovery of loan which was decreed ex-parte in preliminary form. The decree-
holder bank then put the decree into execution. In due course, an auction was held.
After completion of auction formalities, the sale was confirmed in favor of the
auction-purchaser Mr. “Z”. Accordingly, a sale certificate was prepared and duly
registered. Thereafter, “Z” got delivery of possession of the mortgaged land sold in
auction with the help of police force.
On 07.09.2004, one Mr. “A”, who is the brother of the judgment-debtor, filed an
application under Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read
with section 57 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for restoration of possession of .75
decimal of land of the same plot. He also prayed for appointing a survey knowing
commissioner to ascertain his property. Mr. “X” contended that at the time of taking
over possession of the mortgaged property, the auction purchaser in collusion with
the decree holder and others illegally and fraudulently has also taken over
possession of the personal inherited property of him which is contiguous to the suit
property and that the said land is neither the mortgaged nor sold in auction.
Consequently, an advocate commissioner was appointed who surveyed the disputed
land and submitted his report and was examined by the Court. On consideration of
the advocate commissioner report together with submission during hearing by
parties concerned, the Artha Rin Adalat found that applicant Mr “A”, in fact, was
dispossessed from his land which is not the subject matter of the mortgage. Then
the Adalat directed the auction purchaser to restore possession of .75 decimal of
land in favour of the applicant, Mr “A”.
144th Refresher _JDL_OP
===== Page 7 =====
In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the auction purchaser, being
aggrieved, took recourse to the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division and
obtained rule.
It is argued inter alia on behalf of the auction-purchaser that Mr. “A” being a third
party cannot file any application under section 32 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
without depositing 25% of the decretal amount. It is further argued that the issue
raised by Mr. “A” before the Artha Rin Adalat in the execution case can only be
resolved in a properly framed suit and not on an application under Order XXI Rule
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Questions
a) Under the given facts and circumstances of the suit, whether application by
Mr. “A” under Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure without
depositing 25% of the decretal amount as envisaged in sub-section (2) of
section 32 of the Ain, 2003 is maintainable.
b) Can the Artha Rin Adalat resolve the disputed question of fact under Order
21 Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Problem- 8
Plaintiff “X” instituted Title suit No. 2 of 2005 in a court of Joint District Judge for
declaration that the auction sale in execution of the decree passed by an Artha Rin
Adalat is illegal, mala fide, fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff. The
plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the suit land by inheritance and has been
possessing the same by constructing two storied building thereon. For business
purpose, he took loan of eight lac from the defendant No. 1, a bank, upon mortgaging
the suit property. It is stated that the plaintiff paid off the entire interest accrued
on the said loan and was ready to pay off the entire amount of loan money. But the
defendant-bank, being influenced by defendant no. 2, a locally influential and
greedy person, to grab the property, refused to receive the due payment of loan
from the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant-bank without informing anything to
the plaintiff, published tender notice in a national daily newspaper on 21.05.2005
under section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for selling the mortgaged
properties in auction fixing 04.06.2005 as the date of auction and 03.06.2005 as last
date of depositing 25% of the bid money by the tender participants. Mr “X” came to
know about the auction on 02.07.2005. He also came to know that the defendant No.
2 deposited 25% of the bid money on 04.06.2005 quoting 12,50,000/- as the bid money
in violation of the terms and condition of the tender notice. Even then, the defendant
No. 2’s bid was accepted as the highest. Since the auction was held in violation of
Section 12, 33 and 48 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, the plaintiff instituted the
said Title suit.
144th Refresher _JDL_OP
---
🔍 Detailed Case Breakdown
Case 1: The Developer’s Locus Standi
🎯 Core Challenge: Can a third-party developer be added to a suit after a tripartite agreement?
· Short Facts: Developer paid Tk. 6 crore for title deed & GPA. Bank's AR suit attached the property. Developer's impleadment was rejected under ARAA S.6(5).
· Relevant Laws: ARAA S.6(5), CPC Order I Rule 10, Transfer of Property Act S.58A.
· 🟢 Decision: Unlawful. The developer is a necessary party.
· 💡 Reasoning: Payment and possession create an equitable interest. S.6(5) limits plaintiffs/defendants but does not exclude necessary third parties whose rights are affected.
· 📚 References: 62 DLR 138 (HCD); 15 MLR (HC) 201 (AD).
Case 2: Title Certificate After a Failed Auction
🎯 Core Challenge: Is the post-auction holiday title certificate valid?
· Short Facts: Decree passed, auction failed (holiday, no bids). Court issued S.33(7) certificate, followed by a possession writ.
· Relevant Laws: ARAA S.33(4)-(7), CPC Order XXI Rules 95-99.
· 🟢 Decision: Justified. Procedure was correctly followed.
· 💡 Reasoning: An auction holiday validates a no-bid scenario. S.33(7) legally vests the title in the decree-holder, with possession following under S.57.
· 📚 References: 66 DLR (AD) 54; Bank Asia 20 BLC (HCD) 456.
Case 3: Premature Perjury Complaint
🎯 Core Challenge: Can a judge file a perjury complaint before trial concludes?
· Short Facts: Witness turned hostile. Sessions Judge complained under Penal Code without a S.476 CrPC inquiry.
· Relevant Laws: CrPC S.476, Penal Code S.193/212.
· 🔴 Decision: (a) No, pre-trial action is not allowed. (b) No, skipping inquiry is illegal.
· 💡 Reasoning: A S.476 inquiry is mandatory post-trial unless absolutely non-essential. Skipping it prejudices the main trial.
· 📚 References: 45 DLR (AD) 207; State v. Abdul 12 MLR 89.
Case 4: Court Fee Date & Interest Cap Under S.47
🎯 Core Challenge: Which date determines registration, and does the S.47 interest cap apply?
· Short Facts: AR Suit filed without fee, paid later. S.47 application (to cap interest) was rejected as the suit was deemed filed pre-amendment.
· Relevant Laws: ARAA S.6(2), S.47.
· 🟢 Decision: Registration date = fee payment date. Yes, S.47 applies.
· 💡 Reasoning: Court fee payment is mandatory for registration. The benefits of the amended S.47 apply from the date of registration, not filing.
· 📚 References: Agrani Bank 18 BLC 234; 55 DLR 1 (AD).
⚠️ Practitioner's Note: Always verify court fees are paid on filing to correctly trigger the registration date for S.47 benefits.
Case 5: Claiming Police Aid After Title Certificate
🎯 Core Challenge: Can the decree-holder get police aid for possession after getting the S.33(7) title certificate?
· Short Facts: Decree for Tk. 10 lac. Auction failed, S.33(7) certificate obtained. Application for police aid under O.XXI R.98 was rejected.
· Relevant Laws: ARAA S.33(7), S.57, CPC Order XXI Rule 98.
· 🔴 Decision: Improper. Police aid is available.
· 💡 Reasoning: The certificate vests title, but the decree-holder is still an "execution-holder" for the purpose of obtaining possession under S.57, which integrates CPC powers.
· 📚 References: Sonali Bank 70 DLR (AD) 123; 25 MLR (HCD) 67.
Case 6: Missing Signature Verification on Appeal
🎯 Core Challenge: Should a case be remanded if signature verification was skipped at trial?
· Short Facts: Specific performance decreed without expert signature verification. Defendant did not request it.
· Relevant Laws: Evidence Act S.45, 73.
· 🟢 Decision: Decide on merits. No remand needed.
· 💡 Reasoning: Defendant's inaction constitutes a waiver. The appellate court itself has the power to verify signatures under S.73 of the Evidence Act.
· 📚 References: 52 DLR (AD) 89; PLD v. BD 14 MLR 112.
Case 7: Third-Party Claim in Execution (Without Deposit)
🎯 Core Challenge: Is a third-party claim maintainable without the 25% deposit?
· Short Facts: Property auctioned to 'Z'. Third-party 'A' filed O.XXI R.100 claim without depositing 25% value. Commissioner restored excess land.
· Relevant Laws: ARAA S.32(2), CPC Order XXI Rule 100.
· 🔴 Decision: Not maintainable. R.100 does not confer title.
· 💡 Reasoning: The 25% deposit under S.32(2) is a condition precedent. Rule 100 is a summary procedure for possession, not a forum to establish title (which requires a separate suit).
· 📚 References: 68 DLR (AD) 45; Janata Bank 22 BLC 789.
⚠️ Practitioner's Note: Third parties must comply with the mandatory 25% deposit under S.32(2) to even be heard in execution proceedings.
Case 8: Civil Title Suit vs. ARAA Auction
🎯 Core Challenge: Can a separate civil suit challenge an ARAA auction?
· Short Facts: Title Suit filed challenging irregularities in an ARAA auction.
· Relevant Laws: ARAA S.12, 33, 48, 49.
· 🔴 Decision: Not maintainable. AR execution is the exclusive remedy.
· 💡 Reasoning: S.49 of the ARAA imposes an absolute bar on civil suits for matters arising from its execution proceedings. The Act provides a complete code for remedies.
· 📚 References: 59 DLR (AD) 301; BRAC Bank 19 MLR (HCD) 234.
---
✅ Key Takeaways for Practitioners
1. Court Fee is King: The suit registration date (when fee is paid) is critical for determining applicable laws like the S.47 interest cap.
2. Third-Party Door is Narrow: They must prove equitable interest (Case 1) and strictly comply with the 25% deposit rule (Case 7) to be heard.
3. S.33(7) is a Powerful Tool: It converts a failed auction into a clear title, but remember to separately execute for possession (Case 2 & 5).
4. ARAA is a Complete Code: Its ouster clause (S.49) is strong. Challenge auctions within the execution process, not via civil suit (Case 8).
These insights are invaluable for drafting precise NBFI recovery reports, formulating winning Bar exam answers, or creating authoritative legal blog content. Master these scenarios to navigate the Artha Rin Adalat with confidence.
Found this breakdown helpful? Save it for your reference or share it with a colleague navigating the complexities of financial law in Bangladesh.
Comments
Post a Comment