SULTANA JUTE MILLS LTD. Vs. AGRANI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave by the defendants raises three questions of law of public importance, namely, (i) whether a defendant can claim in written statement a set-off or counter-claim against the plaintiff in a suit filed under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990; (ii) whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC lies for rejection of that counter-claim; and (iii) whether a writ petition or a civil revisional application will lie to the High Court Division against an interlocutory order of the Artha Rin Adalat, in this case an order accepting or rejecting the petition under Order VII rule 11 CPC.

(2.) Respondent No. 1, Agrani Bank, instituted as plaintiff Mortgage Suit No. 21 of 1990 in the Court of Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat No.1, Chittagong claiming an amount of Taka 8,89,94,800.22 against the defendant-appellants. The defendant-appellants duly appeared and filed a joint written statement denying the claim altogether. In paragraphs 21-24 of the written statement they made a counterclaim of Taka 20, 22, 81,000.00 as "compensation" which arose out of some alleged illegalities committed by the plaintiff and they paid ad valorem Court fees on their claimed amount.

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent filed an application in the Artha Rin Adalat under Order VII rule 11 CPC for rejection of the counterclaim contending that the Artha Rin Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim against the plaintiff. The defendant-appellants filed a written objection claiming that the petition under Order VII rule 11 CPC was not maintainable. After hearing both the parties the trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff by its order dated 19.2.92 holding, inter alia, (a) that the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990, shortly the Adalat Act, having provided that the Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the proceedings of an Artha Rin Adalat, a counter-claim can always be made in a written statement and (b) that the counterclaim has not been barred by any law and rule 11 (d) CPC is not applicable.