IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah and

[

Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Civil Revision No. 2329 of 1998

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

And

In the matter of:

Md. Abdul Mannan and others

--- 3rd Party-Petitioners.

-Versus-

Rupali Bank Limited and others

--- Plaintiffs-Opposite parties.

None appears

---For the petitioners.

Mr. Md. Imam Hasan, Advocate

--- For the opposite party No. 1

Heard on 09.12.2024 Judgment on: 10.12.2024

Md. Bashir Ullah, J.

At the instance of the 3rd party in Mortgage Execution Case No. 13 of 1996, this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party no. 1 to show cause as to why the order no. 17 dated 01.06.1998 passed by the then learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, First Court, Chattogram should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, the proceeding of Mortgage Execution Case No. 13 of 1996, pending in the then learned Sub-

ordinate Judge, Arthar Rin Adalat, First Court, Chattogram was stayed for 02(two) months, which was subsequently extended from time to time and it was lastly extended on 15.03.1999 till disposal of the Rule.

The salient facts, relevant for the disposal of the Rule are:

On 17.4.1993, the opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted Mortgage Suit No. 25 of 1993 in the 1st Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 for realisation of money. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 in short is that the defendant- opposite party no. 2 is a business concern and the defendant-opposite party no.3 is the owner of defendant-opposite party no. 2. The defendant-opposite party no. 2 opened a current account with the plaintiff bank and subsequently took loan of Tk. 2,00,000/- on 15.02.1984 for the business of cement and C.I. sheet by mortgaging immovable property. The defendants from time to time repaid some amount of money however the liabilities stood at Tk. 8,65,965.70 as of 31.12.1992 and the defendant admitted the above dues but failed to pay the dues on repeated requests hence the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 was constrained to file the Mortgage suit.

The suit was decreed in preliminary form by judgment and order dated 02.09.1993 and the final decree was passed on 08.10.1994. After that, the decree-holder-opposite party no. 1 on l1.01.1996 filed Mortgage Execution Case No. 13 of 1996 for execution of the decree. Subsequently, the court passed an order to publish a proclamation for sale in the daily newspaper. Accordingly, the auction notice was published on 26.04.1998 in ‘the Daily Azadi’. The petitioners came to know the above mortgage execution case from the auction notice and then they filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 01.06.1998 in the First Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram to release the scheduled land from attachment.

The case of the 3rd Party-petitioners is that the defendant-opposite party no.4 sold the suit land measuring 5 decimals to one, Mohammad Fazlul Hoque Chowdhury under R.S. Plot No. 498 and 499 by deed no. 1385 dated 07.03.1994. Mohammad Fazlul Hoque Chowdhury mortgaged the same to National Credit and Commerce Bank Limited and took a loan of Taka 25,00,000/-. Fazlul Hoque Chowdhury could not pay the loan and as such he sold the schedule land along with the building to the petitioners by registered deed no. 4481 on 30.06.1997 with the approval of National Credit and Commerce Bank Limited. Thus the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the schedule land and their names have been recorded in the B.S. Khatian through mutation and paid rent to the government up to the current year. It has