Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque

Civil Revision No. 3292 of 2015

Md. Mostafijar Rahman @ Md. Mostafizur Rahman

... Petitioner -Versus-

Md. Nur Mohammad Mandal and others

...Opposite-parties Mr. Bivash Chandra Biswas with

Ms. Shebani Biswas, Advocates

...For the petitioner Mr. Hosneara Begum, Advocate

...For the opposite-party No. 9.

Heard on 11.06.2024 and Judgment on 12th June, 2024.

In this application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1-9 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Bogura in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 118 of 2013 disallowing the same and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 18.08.2013 passed by the learned Artha Rin Adalat, Bogura in Artha Rin Execution Case No. 160 of 2001 allowing an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts relevant for disposal of this Rule, in short, are that the opposite party-Rupali Bank, as plaintiff, filed Artha Rin Suit No. 119 of 1994 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge) and Artha Rin Adalat, Joypurhat against one Md. Bahar Uddin, predecessor of opposite party Nos. 10-18 for realization of loan amounting to Tk. 52,638.55/-. The defendant contested the suit and after hearing the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-bank. Thereafter, the bank put the decree in execution by filing Execution Case No. 160 of 2001. The opposite party Nos. 10-18 as heirs of original mortgagor were duly substituted in the execution case. In execution case, mortgage property was put in auction, present petitioner participated in the auction held on 27.01.2005 and being highest bidder his offer was accepted and he paid entire auction money in Court. After acceptance of his bid by the execution court, opposite party Nos. 1-8, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was kept in record undisposed of. Thereafter, the opposite party Nos. 1-8 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure for release of the property from execution without depositing money, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 05 of 2005. Similarly, the opposite party Nos. 10-18, as judgment-debtors, also filed an application in the same manner which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2005. The execution court allowed both the miscellaneous cases, against which the decree-holder-bank preferred Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 197 of 2005 and 200 of 2005 and the auction purchaser preferred Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 192 of 2005 and 193 of 2005. All the appeals were heard analogously and after hearing by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2008 the appellate court allowed the same and set aside the judgment and order dated 22.06.2005 passed by the execution court. Thereafter, the opposite party Nos. 1-8 preferred Civil Revision No. 4232 of 2008 in which Rule was discharged. Being failed, they have pressed the application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code filed e arlier. The execution court heard the application and by the judgment and order dated 18.08.2003 allowed the application and set aside the auction sale dated 06.02.2005.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the execution court, auction-purchaser moved before the learned District Judge, Bogura by filing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 118 of 2013. The appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Bogura on transfer who after hearing by the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2015 dismissed the appeal