High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Major Md. Waliul Islam (Retd) v Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Barisal and others
Writ Petition 13834/2025 · Decided 29 July 2026
A bank obtained an ex parte money decree against the petitioner in Artha Rin Suit No. 04 of 2016 and put the mortgaged property to auction in Artha Execution Case No. 26 of 2021. After an auction under section 33(1) drew no bidders, an auction under section 33(4) was held on 13.09.2023 with three bidders. The Adalat called on the decree holder bank to report the property's value on the auction date, which it put at Tk 2,13,25,790.50, and, rejecting the judgment debtor's application under Order XXI rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure, accepted respondent no. 4's highest bid. The judgment debtor challenged that order under article 102, arguing the price was shockingly low against a market value of about Tk 9 crore and that the bidders colluded. The High Court Division held that the bid exceeded both the execution claim and the bank's valuation, that the bank had complied with section 33(2)(ga), and that the collusion allegation had no basis in the record. The Rule was discharged.
- Q1
Whether the Artha Rin Adalat acted unlawfully in accepting the highest bid in an auction under section 33(4) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 on the ground that the price was shockingly low or the bidders colluded.
- Since the auction purchaser's bid exceeded both the amount claimed in the execution case and the outstanding dues and valuation reported by the decree holder bank on the auction date, the price could not be treated as shockingly low so as to set aside the auction.
- Under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 it is the decree holder bank that may raise objection about the price offered by an auction purchaser, and the bank had complied with section 33(2)(ga) by informing the court of the property's value on the auction date.
- The allegation of collusion among the three bidders based on their pay orders was not supported by any material on record, as they offered different prices and deposited money accordingly.
- There was no illegality in the order accepting the bid, so the Rule was discharged and the stay vacated.
outstanding dues stood on the date of holding auction so we are of the considered view that, the price quoted by the respondent no. 4 cannot be taken as shockingly low for which the auction can be set aside.
In the court’s own words.
Writ Petition 13834/2025, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 7 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WRIT PETITION NO. 13834 OF 2025
In the matter of:
An Application under article 102 of the
Constitution of the People’s Republic of
Bangladesh.
And
In the matter of:
Mejor Md. Waliul Islam (Retd)
… Petitioner
-Versus-
Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Barisal and Joint
District Judge, 1st Court, Barisal and others.
… Respondents
Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman Khan, Advocate
…For the petitioner
Ms. Hosneara Begum, Advocate
…For the respondent no.3
Mr. Md. Moniruzzaman Asad, Senior Advocate
with
Mr. Muslim Uddin, Advocate
..For the respondent no. 4
Heard on 22.07.2026, 29.07.2026
and Judgment on 29.07.2026
Present:
Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah
And
Mr. Justice Rezaul Karim
Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah, J.
1On an application under article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, a Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the
respondents to show cause as to why the order No. 32 dated 07.07.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Artha Jari Case No. 26 of 2021 arising out of Artha Rin Suit No. 04 of 2016 so far as it relates to accepting bid of the highest bidder in auction dated 13.09.2023 held under section 33(4) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2At the time of issuance of the rule, all further proceedings of the said Artha Execution Case was stayed for a period of 03 (three) months. The said order of stay was lastly extended on 08.06.2026 for another 06(six) months.
3The short facts leading to issuance of the rule are:
4The present respondent no. 3 as plaintiff originally filed a suit being Artha Rin Suit No. 04 of 2016 claiming an amount of taka 1,11,70,517/and the said suit was ultimately decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2020. Since the defendant of the suit did not come forward to pay the decreetal amount, the decree holder bank then filed an execution case being Artha Execution Case No. 26 of 2021 claiming an amount of taka 1,91,26,471.50. During the proceedings of the said execution case, the decree holder, bank took initiative to sell the property mortgaged with it first under section 33(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain but as no bidder participated in the said auction, the decree holder bank then took initiative for selling the property under section 33(4) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain and on 13.09.2023 it was fixed for holding auction when as many as 3 bidder participated in the bid. In the said auction the
respondent no. 4 offered taka 2,50,000,00/- and deposited the respective amount and then the learned judge fixed on 19.10.2023 for filing the up to date outstanding dues by the decree holder bank against the petitioner. Ultimately the bid so offered by the respondent no. 4 was found to be highest and accepted the same upon taking report from the decree holder, bank who evaluated the value of the mortgaged property on the date of auction at taka 2,13,25,790.50. At that the application filed by the petitioner earlier dated 19.10.2023 under Order 21 rule 83 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken up for hearing and upon hearing the petitioner, the same was rejected and the bid proposed by the auction purchaser herein respondent no. 4 was finally accepted.
5Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order accepting the bid of the respondent no. 4 the judgment debtor as petitioner came before this court and obtained instant rule and order of stay as has been stated herein above.
6Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made two fold of submission, first of all the learned counsel submits that, the price so offered by the respondent no. 4 was shockingly low as the market value of the said property is near about 9,000,0000/-as per the valuation report conducted by the petitioner.
7The learned counsel by taking us to the impugned order also submits that from the pay orders submitted by the three bidders it clearly shows that all the three bidders in collusion with each other submitted the bid by issuing pay orders from the same bank yet the learned judge of the Artha Executing Court has failed to comprehend the said ill intention of
the auction purchaser and very misconceively accepted the bid of the respondent no. 4. On those counts the learned counsel finally prays for making the rule absolute on setting aside the impugned order.
8By contrast, Ms. Hosneara Begum, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition very robustly opposes the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since from the claim made in the execution case and the report submitted by the decree holder, bank finding the valuation of the mortgaged property on the date of action the bid submitted by the respondent no. 4 is the highest bid in comparison to what has been claimed by the petitioner having no scope to find the bid as shockingly low.
9The learned counsel further contends that under Order 21 rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure the present petitioner had the scope to deposit 5% of the decreetal amount and to pray for set aside the auction but without doing so he has challenged the impugned order which cannot be sustained in law and finally prays for discharging the rule.
10Mr. Md. Moniruzzaman Asad, along with Mr. Muslim Uddin, learned counsels appearing for the respondent no. 4 by filing an affidavitin-opposition also opposes the contention so taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and by taking us to the affidavit-in-opposition in particular, paragraph no. 8 thereof at the very outset submits that earlier this petitioner filed a writ petition being no. 11943 of 2024 where apart from obtaining a rule also obtaining an interim order of stay on the further proceedings of the order being no. 20 dated 13.09.2023 though the said
interim order was given till 23.11.2024 when this respondent challenging that interim order traveled to the Appellate Division by filing a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 3895 of 2024 when on 20.11.2024 when no order was passed and the rule issuing bench was directed to dispose of the rule of that very writ petition but the said writ petition has not yet been disposed of.
11The learned counsel further contends that since the interim order was passed for a limited period and no extension has been taken by the petitioner so the interim order passed in earlier writ petition will have no bearing on the merit as well as disposing of the instant rule.
12The learned counsel lastly contends that on the face of the impugned order it appears no illegality ever committed by the learned judge in accepting the bid so have been submitted by the present respondent and finally prays for discharging the rule.
13We have considered the submission so placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of the learned counsels for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Together, we have also very meticulously gone through the writ petition, impugned order and all the material documents so appended therewith vis-à-vis the affidavit-in-opposition filed the respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively. On going through the impugned order dated 07.07.2024, we find that the auction was held on 13.09.2023 and vide order no. 20 the learned judge fixed on 19.10.2023 to apprise it about the price of the property stood on the date of auction accordingly the decree holder, bank apprised the court that though at the time of filing of the execution case the claim was at taka 1,91,26,471.50 but on the date
of holding auction the price was 2,13,25,790.50 when the respondent no. 4 offered taka2,50,000,00/- that is, must more then that of the value to have found by the decree holder, bank at the time of holding auction. So on that score, we cannot take the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the price quoted by the respondent no. 4 is shockingly low. Because it is only the decree holder bank who can only raise objection with regard to the price supposed to be offered by auction purchaser as mandated in section 32(2)(ga) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, where the judgment debtor has not given any scope to raise such kind of objection and accordingly on the date of holding auction, the learned judge of the Artha Rin Adalat without accepting the bid asked the decree holder bank to let him know about estimated value of the property on the date of auction and accordingly the decree holder, bank in complying with the provision of section 33(2)(ga) informed the court about the value at taka 2,13,25,790/-. So obviously the decree holder bank has complied with the provision of section 33(2)(ga) of the Ain, However, in the four corner of the writ petition we don’t find that the petitioner has ever raised any objection. Furthermore, point of fraud has been raised to have committed by the auction purchaser in depositing pay orders is not based on any materials on record. Because since 3 bidders participated in the bid offering 3 diriment price and basing on those prices they have also deposited certain percent of money through pay order having no scope for any court to find same person has deposited those three pay orders. On top of that, since the auction purchaser offered the bid way beyond the claim amount so have been made in the execution case and that of the
14outstanding dues stood on the date of holding auction so we are of the considered view that, the price quoted by the respondent no. 4 cannot be taken as shockingly low for which the auction can be set aside.
15Regard being had to the above facts and circumstances and basing on the materials on record, and the provision of law so have been discussed and observed herein above, we don’t find any illegality in the impugned order which is liable to be sustained.
16Accordingly, the rule is discharged however without any order as to costs.
17The order of stay granted at the time of issuance of the rule stands recalled and vacated.
18Let a copy of this judgment and order be communicated to the respondents forthwith. Rezaul Karim, J.
I agree.
19Kawsar/A.B.O.
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
