This case discusses three civil revision cases filed against an order by a subordinate judge regarding three suits filed by Ansarul Haque against Agrani Bank regarding fixed deposit receipts. The key points are: 1) Ansarul Haque argued the suits should be transferred as the receipts were actually checks, making order 37 of the CPC applicable for summary proceedings. However, the court found the receipts were not negotiable instruments like checks but rather fixed deposits. 2) As fixed deposits are not considered negotiable instruments, order 37 did not apply and the subordinate court had proper jurisdiction to hear the suits without transferring them. 3) Therefore, the court dismissed the revision cases, finding the subordinate

1. P R E S E N T E D B Y S H A H A R A F A T A Y A T U L L A H
I D : 2 0 1 4 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 6 8
B A T C H : 3 4 T H , S E C T I O N - 1
D E P A R T M E N T O F L A W A N D J U S T I C E
S O U T H E A S T U N I V E R S I T Y
Case study

2. ANSARUL HAQUE VS. AGRANI BANK
[48DLR{1996}479]
Case study on

3. Agenda
Nature of the Case.
Application of the case.
Facts of the case.
Arguments.
Concise rule of law.
Holding and decision.

4. Case study
 Nature of the Case: Civil revision.
Civil revision No.-1007 of 1995,
-1008 of 1995,
-1009 of 1995 ,are directed against the order dated
30-8-94 passed by learned subordinate judge,Dhaka.
 Hearing concluded: 12-2-96,Mr. Wadud Bhuiyan, learned
Additional Attorny General,appeared to assist the court as amicus
curiae (an impartial adviser to a court of law in a particular case).
 Application of the case:
i. section 13 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881
ii. Order 37 Rule-2 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908
iii. Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908

5. Facts of Case
Mr Ansarul Haque Sued against Agnani Bank Suit No - 3 of 1994
Suit No - 4 of 1994
Suit No - 2 of 1994
Claiming that the principle sum due on three fixed deposits kept with the
bank together with interest at the rate 14.25%. per annum. Summons to
obtain leave from the court to appear and defend the suit under rule 2-
order 37 of the CPC was only served on the defendant.But the court under
the impugned order dated 30-8-94 accepted the written statement filed
by defendant and fixing a date of framing issue where the defendant did
not obtain leave from the court withen 10 days of the service of summon.
Which is required summary procedure on negotiable instruments .
Petitioner Aggrieved by the order of Framing issue So he has filed these
revisional applications (u/s-24) of code of civil procedure, to transfer
the suit due to learned sub ordinate judge has no jurisdiction to deals with
the suit in summary procedure .

6. Issue
 Has the subordinate court committed any error
or irregularity under the negotiable instrument act ?
 Whether this suit is transferable or not ?
 whether Mr Ansarul Haque entitled to get any
relief?

7. Arguments
Argument on behalf of petitioner
1.Under order 37 R- 2 – to obtain
leave from the court within 10 days
which is violated by the subordinate
judge court. This is clear violation of the
rule and the impugned orders passed by
the subordinate judge court are illegal
and as such liable to be set aside
2.Other point raised by the petitioner
is that under order 37 subordinate
court has no jurisdiction to deal with or
dispose of a suit on negotiable
instrument is summary procedure
HCD/DJ has only jurisdiction to deal
with this case.
3.At this stage Mr Ansarul Hauqe
submits that it was mistake on this part
to have mentioned at the beginning
these case based on promissory note ,
in fact these are not deposits receipt
but cheques relation to an amount of.
TK- 1,70,000,00
TK – 3,45,000,00
Tk - 2,00,000,00 respectively his
point is that cheque is negotiable
instrument order 37 will applicable .

8. Argument on behalf of
defendant
1.Mr SA Rahim ,learned advocate
appearing for defend a fixed
deposited receipt on the basis of
which the three suits have been filed
is not negotiable instrument so such
court has jurisdiction to dispose of
these three suits file by the
petitioner order 37 of the CPC
prescribing summary procedure is
not attracted to the present suits and
three suits are perfectly valid and not
liable to be set aside.
We have perused photo copies of the
document relating to.
Tk – 1, 70,000.00
Tk – 3, 45,000.00
Tk – 200, 000, 00
.
Issued by Agnani bank payable on
maturity of three years with interest
at the note of 14.25% per annum. We
are therefore unable to accept
contention of the petitioner that
these are cheques not fixed deposits
3. Mr SA Rahim has referred to the
decision AlR 1940 (mod) 157 ,
where it is observed by
the learned single judge that the fixed
deposit is not a negotiable
instrument and an indoresment on
the back doesn’t same effect as an
indoresment of a bill of exchange or
promissory note.
Arguments Cont.

9. Argument on behalf of defendant Cont.
4. In the case of
Rangnation vs.peria
karuppan AIR 1997
(sc) 815- A deposit
receipt of that kind does
not fall within the meaning
of negotiable instrument
(u/s-13).
5. Mr Abdul wadul bhuiyan ,
who appeared as amicus
curiae has referred a
decision that document
was a receipt.

10. Concise Rule of Law
 According to Section 13 (1) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, “A negotiable instrument means
a promissory note, bill of exchange, or cheque
payable either to order or to bearer.
 Order 37 Rule-2 of Code of Civil
Procedure,1908-The defendant must apply for
leave to defend within the stipulated period of 10
days.

11. Holding and Decision
 Having considered the submission of the petitioner,the
amicus curiae Mr. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan Hold that a
fixed deposite receipt is not a promissory note and not a
negotiable instrument within the meaning of section -13
of Negotiable Instrument Act.
 A fixed deposite receipt is not a promissory note and not
a negotiable instrument so order 37 of CPC plainly not
applicable here.
 The learned subordinate judge has committed no error of
law and has jurisdiction to try those suits without
transferring to the district judge court[u/s-24].