Home Today's Paper Most Popular Video Gallery Photo Gallery
Subscription Blog Signin Register
Logo
Monday, July 22, 2019 10:27:07 AM
Follow Us On: Facebook Twitter Twitter Twitter Twitter

No provision for fresh limitation from final order

By
09th-Feb-2019       
Comments
Share your thought
Post a comment »
Read all () »

High Court Division
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Sheikh Hassan Arif J  }  Mohitur Rahman Choudhury (Md) and
Md Badruzzaman  J    } others………Petitioners
                                    }                 VS
Judgment                    } Md Abdul Kuddus Miah and others------
April 4th, 2017 }--------------Respondents    

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Article 182
Application for execution of a final decree or order is to be made within 3 (three) years from the date mentioned in 2nd column of Article 182 of the Act subject to some exceptions as detailed in the 3rd column read with provisions of Section 15 of the Act inasmuch as Article 182 makes no provision for fresh limitation from a final order passed on an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code. If no stay order or injunction is passed staying the operation of the decree or order under Section 15 or no situation arises as per the 3rd column of Article 182 the decree or order would keep open for execution and time would run from the date of final decree or order…………………    (15)
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
 Article 182
A bare reading of Article 182 of the Act suggests that an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code does not come within the meaning of applications mentioned in Clause 5 of Column 3 of Article 182 of the Act to save limitation. Pendency of a case under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex-parte decree cannot extend the period of limitation for filing execution case. . ............ (15)

Md Abdur Rahim vs Sree Sree Gredhari, 27 DLR 72; Bangladesh Jatiya Samabaya Bank Limited vs Sangbad Daily Paper, 1983 BCR (AD) 418; ADC (Revenue), Pabna vs Md Abdul Halim Miah, 48 DLR (AD) 141; Pingle Venkata Rama Reddy vs Kakaria Buchanna, AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh (FB) 1; Lalji Raja and sons vs Firm Hansraj Nathuram, AIR 1971 (SC) 974 and Comilla Banking Corporation Limited vs Nanda Kumar Bhattacharjee, 1 PLR (Dacca) 215 ref.
Md Delwar Hossain with Salma Begum, Advocate-For the Petitioners.
Khursheed Jahan, Advocate-For the Respondent No: 5

Judgment
Md Badruzzaman J : This Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why Title Execution Case No. 04 of 1995, pending in the 2nd Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka should not be declared as time barred, void and not binding upon the petitioner as being filed beyond the period of limitation of 3 (three) years under Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990.
2. Relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this rule in brief, are that the petitioner No. 1 and predecessor of other petitioners availed to House Building Loan from respondent No.5 Janata Bank Limited. Being defaulted in payment by them respondent No.5 filed Title Suit No. 228 of 1986 in 1st Commercial Court, Dhaka for recovery of outstanding dues amounting to Taka 6,60,020 as on 30-9-1985. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Artha Rin Adalat No.2, Dhaka and renumbered as Title Suit No. 337 of 1990. Ultimately the suit was decreed ex-parte in preliminary form on 18-8-1990 and final decree was drawn on 4-2-1992.  The present petitioners thereafter, filed Miscellaneous Case No. 180 of 1992 under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 18-3-1992 for settling aside the ex-parte decree which was dismissed for default on 26-9-1992.
3. Thereafter, respondent No.5 filed Title Execution Case No.4 of 1995 on 31-8-1995 before the Adalat. During pendency of said execution case the petitioners on 17-7-2000 filed an application for dismissing the execution case as being time barred. Said application was rejected by the Adalat on 24-8-2000. The petitioners then filed an application for recalling the order dated 24-8-2000 which was also rejected vide order dated 9-1-2003. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed application for dismissing the execution case as being time barred which was also rejected by order dated 14-10-2004.
4. In the above factual background the petitioners (judgment debtors) have come up with this application and obtained the instant rule on 10-11-2004.
5. At the time of issuance of rule further proceedings of the execution case was stayed for a period of 3 (three) months which was, thereafter, extended by order dated 8-2-2005 till disposal of the rule.
6. The rule is opposed by respondent No. 5 by filing affidavit-in-opposition stating that the miscellaneous case which was filed under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code was a continuation of the suit inasmuch as the execution case was filed after 2 years 11 months and 5 days from the date of disposal of the miscellaneous case which was covered by the provisions of Article 182(2) of the Limitation Act. As such, the execution case was not barred by limitation.
7. One Md Moklasur Rahman also been added as respondent No.6 by order dated 31-82015 but at the time of hearing none appears to oppose the rule on his behalf.
8. Mr Md Delwar Hossain, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners by drawing our attention to Article 182 of the Limitation Act submits that Article 182 of the Limitation Act prescribes provisions for filing execution case within a period of (three) years from the date of final decree or order passed in a suit with some exceptions provided in the said Article but the respondent bank without complying with the aforesaid provisions of law filed the execution case after 3 (three) years 6 (six) months and 26 (twenty six) days from the date of final decree and, as such, the execution case is barred by limitation and accordingly continuation of the said execution case is an abuse of the process of the Court and liable to be rejected. Learned Advocate further submits that Article 182 of the Limitation Act prescribes no provisions for fresh limitation from an order rejecting an application by the trial Court under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further referring to Section 15 of the Limitation Act, learned Advocate submits that since no order or injunction was passed by the Adalat in the miscellaneous case staying the operation of the decree no time can be excluded in calculating the period of limitation.
9. As against the above submissions Ms Khursheed Jahan, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.5 reiterates the contentions as has been stated in the affidavit-in opposition.
10. We have heard the learned Advocates and perused the records. It appears that an ex-parte final decree was passed on 4-2-1992 against the petitioners. Thereafter, they filed a miscellaneous case under Order IX,  Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside said ex-parte decree which was ultimately dismissed for default by order dated 26-9-1992. Respondent bank then filed Execution Case No. 04 of 1995 on 31-8-1995 i.e. after 3 (three) years 6 (six) months and 26 (twenty six) days from the date of final decree.
11. Now question arises as to whether in view of the pending miscellaneous case under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree limitation would be saved within the meaning of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, which determines the starting point of limitation.
12. In the case of Md Abdur Rahim vs Sree Sree Gredhari reported in 27 DLR 72 it is held that the Limitation Act prescribes that an application for execution is to be made within 3 (three) years from the date mentioned in 3rd Column of Article 182. And if such application is not filed within the prescribed period the execution case would be hit by the above Article. By adopting aforesaid view our Appellate Division in the case of Bangladesh Jatiya Samabaya Bank Limited vs Sangbad Daily Paper reported in 1983 BCR (AD) 418 expressed the same view. In a later case of ADC (Revenue)  Pabna  vs  Md Abdul Halim Miah reported in 48 DLR (AD) 143 our Apex Court held as follows:
"This Court, has however, already pronounced itself on this point in the case of Bangladesh Jatiya Samabaya Bank Limited vs Sangbad Daily Paper, BCR 1983 (AD) 418. The said decision was given on consideration of the cases of Md Abdur Rahim vs Sree Sree Gredhari reported in 27 DLR (Dhaka) 72; Pingle Venkata Rama Reddy vs  Kakaria Buchnna, AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh (FB) 1 and Lalji Raja and sons vs Firm Hansraj Nathumm, AIR 1971 (SC) 974. This Court approved of the approach of the then Dhaka High Court in the aforecited  cases in 27 DLR (Dhaka) 72 and affirmed that both Section 48 CPC and Article 182(2) of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act provide the period of limitation for the execution of a decree. The Civil Procedure Code fixes the longest period whereas the Limitation Act fixes the earliest period of take the first step in execution and the subsequent steps known as steps-in-aid. This Court also affirmed the further view of the then Dhaka High Court that an application for execution has therefore to satisfy First Schedule Article 182 of the Limitation Act being the earliest period prescribed and then also Section 48 CPC which prescribed the maximum period of limitation. If the execution petition is hit by any of the two provisions it is to fail."
13. In similar case of the Comilla Banking Corporation Limited vs Nanda Kumar Bhattacharjee reported in 1 PLR (Dacca) 215 by a majority view of three learned Judges held as follows:
"The expression 'where there has been an appeal' cannot and does not include an appeal from an order rejecting an application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Wide though literally the expression is, it cannot mean an appeal from any decree or any order passed between the parties in any suit or any proceeding. It is significant that Article 182 of Limitation Act no provision for fresh limitation from an order rejecting an application by the trial Court under Order IX. rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If it had been intended that an appeal from an order rejecting an application would keep the decree open, it would have been provided also that an application to the trial Court to set aside an ex-parte decree would keep the decree open."                                                                                                                                                      14. Section 15 of the Limitation Act also provides as follows:
"15. Exclusion of time during which proceedings are suspended-(I) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit for application for the execution of a decree, the institution or execution of which has been stayed by injunction or order, the time of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or made, and the day on which it was withdrawn, shall be excluded.
(2) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit of which notice has been given in accordance with the requirements of any enactment for the time being in force, the period of such notice shall be excluded."
15. The above ratio and the provisions of Section 15 of the Act clearly suggest that application for execution of a final decree or order is to be made within 3 (three) years from the date mentioned in 2nd Column of Article 182 of the Limitation Act subject to some exceptions as detailed in the 3rd Column read with provisions of Section 15 of the Act in as much as Article 182 makes no provision for fresh limitation from a final order passed on an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code. In other words if no stay order or injunction is passed staying the operation of the decree or order under Section 15 or no situation arises as per the 3rd Column of Article 182 the decree or order would keep open for execution and time would run from the date of final decree or order. A bare reading of Article 182 of the Limitation Act also suggests that an application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code does not come within the meaning of applications mentioned in Clause 5 of Column 3 of Article 182 of the Limitation Act to save limitation. Accordingly, pendency of a case under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex-parte decree cannot extend the period of limitation for filing execution case.
16. Admittedly, there was no order in the miscellaneous case staying operation of the final decree. The execution case was filed on 31-8-1995 which was beyond the period of 3 (three) years from 4-2-1992, the date of final decree. Accordingly, we are of the view that the execution case was barred by limitation.
17. In view of what we have stated above we find merit in this rule.
18. In the result, the Rule is made absolute however, without any order as to costs.
19. The impugned execution proceeding as a whole is set aside as being time barred.
20. The order of stay granted earlier is hereby vacated.
Communicate a copy of this judgment at once.

Tariff
Add Rate

News Archive

Inside The New Nation

Editorial »

Taking law in own hand is an ominous sign


MOBS beat to death five people, including two women, and injured 10 others on suspicion of being child kidnappers across the country on Saturday. The incidents happened just a day after three people were beaten by a mob in Thakurgaon. Incidents of mob beating have increased even after the Bridges ...

International »

Abe on course to retain majority in upper house election


AFP, Tokyo :Japanese voters cast ballots Sunday in an upper house election, with Shinzo Abe's ruling bloc looking to protect its majority and keep on track plans to amend the country's pacifist constitution.The 64-year-old Abe, who is on course to become Japan's longest-serving prime minister, is also hoping to shore ...

Entertainment »

Mehazabien, Tawsif, Sabila Nur’s Eid drama Better half


Entertainment Report :Few days ago, a drama titled Swapno Dekhi Abaro, directed by Mahmudur Rahman Himi, was made with theme given by popular TV actress Mehazabien Chowdhury. Mehazabien also acted in this play against Shamol Mawla which will be telecasted in upcoming Eid. This time Imraul Rafat has made an ...

Editorial »

Administrative control over ACC only to happy the corrupts


ANTI-GRAFT campaigner Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has expressed deep concern and extreme disappointment over the government's decision for making Deputy Commissioners as authorised officers to oversee the Anti-Corruption Commission's work in the districts. The move will undoubtedly restrict the ACC's ability to fight graft and proper investigation into allegations of ...

Sports »

Penny drops for Canada's teen swim queen Oleksiak


Canada's Penny Oleksiak insists she has finally left the "weirdness" of capturing Olympic swimming gold at the tender age of 16 after finally recovering from a lengthy Rio hangover. Oleksiak, who is preparing for the world championships which begin in South Korea this weekend, stunned the sport when she dead-heated ...

International »

Thousands rally in support of Hong Kong police


AP, Hong Kong :Tens of thousands of people rallied in support of Hong Kong's police and pro-Beijing leadership on Saturday, a vivid illustration of the polarisation coursing through the city after weeks of anti-government demonstrations.Hong Kong has been rocked by more than a month of huge and largely peaceful protests-as ...

International »

US offers $7m to find Hezbollah agent as Pompeo visits Argentina


AFP, Buenos Aires :The United States on Friday offered a $7 million reward to find a Hezbollah operative accused of masterminding a deadly 1994 attack on a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sought to unite Latin American nations against the militants.Pompeo visited to mark ...

Entertainment »

Shilpa Shetty to return to the big screen after twelve years


Shilpa Shetty is all set to make a comeback on the big screen after a gap of twelve years. The actress was last seen in Dharmendra, Sunny and Bobby Deol starrer Apne (2007). Before jetting off on a holiday with family, Shilpa has green lit filmmaker Aziz Mirza's son Haroon ...

Editorial »

Corruption in WASA crosses all limits


THE Anti Corruption Commission has identified eight projects and three areas in Dhaka WASA where corruption takes place. The State enterprise keeps extending deadlines and increasing the costs of its projects to create room for corruption. In many cases, WASA did not carry out its work as per project designs ...

International »

UN reaches agreement with Yemen rebels to resume food deliveries


AFP, United Nations :The World Food Program has reached an agreement in principle with Yemen's Huthi rebels to resume food aid to areas they control, the agency's chief said on Thursday.Malnutrition is widespread in Yemen after four years of civil war, but the UN suspended deliveries of food aid to ...

Entertainment »

Shabnam Parvin’s Hurmoti film to be released after Eid


Entertainment Report :Viewers’ choice popular actress Shabnam Parvin has made a movie titled Hurmoti which is based on her own written story. Shabnam Parvin herself played the title role in the movie. Al Monjur wrote dialogue while script was also written by Shabnam Parvin herself. Shabnam Parvin informed that against ...

Editorial »

China funded projects: Delay would create problems


A JOINT working group has been formed to probe the slow progress of the 27 projects involving around $20 billion that China had agreed to provide during President Xi Jinping's Dhaka visit in October 2016. China has so far disbursed only $981.36 million -- less than 5 percent of the ...

Football »

Infantino reacts to Blatter criticism over Africa cleanup


AP, Cairo :FIFA president Gianni Infantino hit back at Sepp Blatter's criticism of the world soccer body's cleanup operation in Africa as a modern-day form of "colonialism."Infantino response on Thursday was: "I have to laugh about it."Blatter, the former head of FIFA who is serving a six-year ban from soccer, ...

City »

A vital portion of highway in Uttara near Armed Police Office is in dilapidated condition where big potholes and cracks following incessant rains for the last few days and works relating to metro-rail project, other development works. This photo was taken on Thursday.


International »

US against any country purchasing Russia's S-400 defence system: Pentagon


PTI, Washington :The US is keen to make its defence partnership with India stronger, the Pentagon has said, but made it clear that it is against any country purchasing military equipment, including the S-400 missile defence system from Russia, that is designed to counter America's sophisticated fifth-generation aircraft.The remarks by ...

 
Items that you save may be read at any time on your computer, iPad, iPhone or Android devices.
 
Are you new to our website? Do you have already an account at our website?
Create An Account Log in here
Email this news to a friend or like someone
Email:
Write a comment to this news