High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Monir Chowdhury v Uttara Bank Limited
Civil Revision 4161/2016 · Rule discharged; stay vacated · Decided 30 August 2026
Uttara Bank Limited obtained an ex parte decree on 24.02.2016 in Artha Rin Suit No. 49 of 2015 for Tk 18,63,000.19 against a borrower whose proprietor, defendant No. 2, had taken a loan of Tk 12,00,000 on mortgage of land. Defendant No. 2 applied on 30.05.2016 under section 19(2) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 to set aside the decree but did not deposit 10% of the decretal amount. The Artha Rin Adalat, 4th Court, Dhaka rejected the application, and the District Judge, Dhaka summarily dismissed his appeal on 21.08.2016 for want of the deposit. In revision, the High Court Division held that sections 19(2) and 19(3) must be read together, so the application could not be entertained without filing within 30 days and depositing within 15 days, and the special law left no scope to allow a later deposit. Section 20 also barred the appeal. The Rule was discharged, the stay vacated and the trial court left free to proceed with execution.
- Whether an ex parte decree of the Artha Rin Adalat can be set aside where the defendant did not apply within 30 days or deposit 10% of the decretal amount within 15 days as required by section 19(2) and 19(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.
- Whether an appeal lay to the District Judge against an order of the Artha Rin Adalat rejecting an application to set aside an ex parte decree.
- Sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 are complementary and must be read together: an application to set aside an ex parte decree must be filed within 30 days of the decree or of knowledge of it, and 10% of the decretal amount must be deposited within 15 days of the application.
- Being a special law with a specific provision for setting aside ex parte decrees, the Ain leaves no scope to direct the defendant to deposit 10% of the decretal amount beyond the prescribed time.
- Under section 20 of the Ain no appeal lies against an order of the Artha Rin Adalat other than against the final decree, so the Miscellaneous Appeal to the District Judge was misconceived.
- The single bench interim order directing a deposit of 10% of the decretal amount, made after the Division Bench had refused interim relief when issuing the Rule, was in violation of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973.
- Decisions given under the Code of Civil Procedure rather than a special law were distinguishable.
Since the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 clearly provides specific provision for setting aside the ex parte decree being a special law there is no scope to direct the defendant to deposit 10% of the decretal amount beyond the prescribed time
