Judgment text0% read
Browse the contents
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website ↗
Case information
| Court | Supreme Court of Bangladesh — High Court Division |
|---|---|
| Case reference | First Misc Appeal 289/2024 |
| Case-reference year | 2024 |
| Case type | First Misc Appeal |
| Court website upload date | 11-JUN-26 |
The case-reference year is not the judgment year. The court website upload date is not a judgment date.
Official index description (excerpt)
Source: Supreme Court official index.
According to sub-rule (1) of rule 22 of Order XXI of the Code, if an application for execution of a decree is made more than two years after the date of the decree, issuance of notice against the judgment-debtor is mandatory but according to sub-rule (3) of rule 22, no order of execution of decree shall be invalid by reason of omission to issue a notice under sub-rule (1). So, the provision of sub-rule (1) of rule 22 became redundant after incorporation of sub-rule (3) in Order XXI of the Code which follows that even if an application for execution is made more than two years after the date of the decree, the order of execution of the decree shall not be invalid by reason of the omission to issue a notice against the judgment-debtor. The provisions of the Transfer of the Property Act, as discussed above, as well as the law declared by the Hon’ble Appellate Division in Sayed Jubayer Hossain, 28 BLC(AD) 50 (supra), clearly suggest that if an immovable property is mortgaged against security of loan empowering the mortgagee to sell the mortgaged-property in the event of his failing to
[Excerpt ends; the complete index description is retained in the catalogue JSON.]