Appellate Division
Prime Global Limited and others v Sonali Bank Limited and others
Civil Appeal 86/2015 · Appeal allowed · Decided 28 August 2025
Uttara Bank sued Prime Global Limited (PGL) and Sonali Bank in Artha Rin Suit No. 293 of 2003 over IBP facilities given to PGL against 57 post-dated cheques that Sonali Bank had endorsed as good for payment and which were dishonoured. On 07.08.2006 the suit was dismissed against PGL on contest and decreed ex parte against Sonali Bank. In 2008 the Adalat allowed Sonali Bank's application to set aside the decree ex parte, restoring the suit. On PGL's writ petition, the High Court Division declared the restoration order without lawful authority, but the Appellate Division set that judgment aside in 2011. On review, the Appellate Division held that Sonali Bank had admitted on oath knowing of the suit by 19.02.2005, so the purpose of summons was met, and had learned of the decree by legal notice on 13.12.2006. Its application, filed over two years after the decree, did not meet the jurisdictional requirements of section 19(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. The appeal was allowed.
- Whether an ex parte decree could be treated as a nullity for non-service of summons when the defendant bank had admitted on oath that it knew of the suit.
- Whether the Artha Rin Adalat could restore the suit on an application to set aside the ex parte decree filed more than two years after the decree, without compliance with section 19(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
- Where a defendant has admitted on oath that it knew of the pending suit, the very purpose of service of summons is met, as the defendant has constructive knowledge of the suit.
- Ignorance of law excuses no one (ignorantia legis neminem excusat).
- Under section 19(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, an application for restoration must be filed within 30 days of the ex parte decree or of the defendant's knowledge, and 10 percent of the decretal amount must be deposited within 15 days of filing; these are jurisdictional mandates.
- An Adalat that restores a suit on an application filed more than two years after the ex parte decree acts without compliance with section 19(2).
- The High Court Division rightly set aside the order of restoration passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 390 of 2008.
the Adalat acted without compliance to the jurisdictional mandates of Section 19(2) of the Ain, 2003 that the application for restoration must be filed within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the ex parte decree or from the date of knowledge of the defendant
