High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
S.M. Parvez v Government of Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 8707/2024 · Rule discharged as infructuous · Decided 13 August 2026
The petitioner challenged under Article 102 of the Constitution an auction notice published by respondent No. 3 in the daily Prothom Alo on 25.06.2024, purportedly under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, for the sale of the scheduled mortgaged property by auction on 21.07.2024. On 11.07.2024 the High Court Division issued a Rule Nisi and stayed the operation of the notice on condition that the petitioner paid Tk 1,00,00,000 by 30.12.2024, failing which the stay would stand recalled and vacated. At the hearing, the advocate for respondent No. 3 submitted that the property could not be sold because of the stay, that the scheduled auction date had expired in the meantime, and that the notice had therefore lost effectiveness, so the Rule had become infructuous. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court discharged the Rule as infructuous without any order as to costs and recalled the order of stay granted when the Rule was issued.
- Whether a Rule challenging an auction notice under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 survived once the scheduled auction date had passed without a sale.
- The auction notice published under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 lost its effectiveness once the scheduled auction date expired without a sale, the sale having been prevented by the Court's stay.
- The Rule challenging that notice had therefore become infructuous and was discharged, with no order as to costs.
- The order of stay granted at the time of issuing the Rule was recalled.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rule is discharged as being infructuous. No order as to cost. The order of stay granted at the time of issuance of the Rule is hereby by recalled.
