IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 5516 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF

An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People ’s Republic of Bangladesh

-AND-

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mortuzar Rahman

... Petitioner -Versus-

Artha Rin Adalat No. 4, Dhaka and another

... Respondents Mr. Hossain Ahamed (Ashik), Advocate

.....For the petitioner Mr. Iftekher Ahmed, Advocate

….. For respondent No. 2

The 08th day of November, 2023

Present:

Mr. Justice J.B.M. Hassan

and

Mr. Justice Razik-Al-Jalil

J.B.M. Hassan, J:

By filing an application under Article 102 of the Constitution,

the petitioner obtained the Rule Nisi in the following terms:

“Let  a  Rule  Nisi  be  issued  calling  upon  the respondents to show cause as to why the order no. 27 dated 26.01.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 4, Dhaka in Artha Rin Suit No.  576  of  2017  rejecting  the  petitioner’s application for mediation under section 22 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 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.”

Relevant facts for disposal of the Rule Nisi are that the

respondent-bank,  namely,  Social  Islami  Bank  Limited,  Babu Bazar Branch, Dhaka, as plaintiff, instituted Artha Rin Suit No. 576 of 2017 before the Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka (“the Adalat”) for realization of loan amounting to Tk.4,09,74,393.12 (four crore nine lac seventy four thousand three hundred ninety three and twelve paisa) with interest till realization.

In  the  suit,  the  petitioner  as  defendant  No.  4  alongwith defendants No. 1 and 2 filed an application seeking appointment of  Mediator  in  accordance  with  section  22  of  the  Artha  Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (“the Act, 2003”). The Adalat by the impugned order dated 26.01.2020 rejected the said application which led the petitioner to file this writ petition.

After  placing  the  impugned  order,  Mr.  Hossain  Ahamed (Ashik), learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that appearing in the suit the petitioner filed written statement on 13.11.2019 and immediately  thereafter,  he  alongwith  two  others  filed  the application  for  appointment  of  Mediator  in  accordance  with section 22. But the Adalat on misconception of law rejected the prayer by the impugned order dated 26.01.2020.

On the other hand, Mr. Iftekher Ahmed learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 contends that the mediation process was exhausted earlier in accordance with section 22 of the Act, 2003 considering which the Adalat rejected the petitioner’s prayer. As such, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order.

 We have gone through the writ petition and other materials on record.

It appears that the suit was filed in the year 2017 and then it proceeded upto the stage of passing the ex-parte decree. At that time the defendant No. 3 appeared in the suit and filed written statement. At the relevant time, the suit was being at the stage for mediation,  the  Mediator  was  appointed  on  29.05.2019  in accordance  with  section  22  of  the  Act,  2003.  The  mediation process ended on 16.07.2019. Thus, the mediation process under section 22 of the Act has already been exhausted at the instance of the  Chairman  of  the  borrower-company  as  defendant  No.  3. Therefore, at this stage there is no scope to take back the suit again for mediation without consent of the bank. Considering all aspects, the Adalat rightly rejected petitioner’s prayer.

In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the Rule Nisi.

In  the  result,  the  Rule  Nisi  is  discharged  without  any order as to costs.

Communicate  a  copy  of  the  judgment  and  order  to  the respondents at once.

Razik-Al-Jalil, J:

I agree.