Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation Order, 1973
Article 27
Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990, Section — 5(1)
Upon examining the relevant provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 and P.O. No. 7 of 1973, particularly Article 27, the Appellate Division held that the world mamla as used in Section 5(1) of the Act refers to ‘suit’ and not to all kinds of legal proceedings.
Before the promulgation of the Artha Rin Adalat Act a financial institution such as Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation could institute a suit in the Civil Court for realisation of its dues notwithstanding the special provisions made for the same purpose in law by which the said Corporation was established.
The purpose of enacting the Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990 appears to be that the legislature wanted to exclude the ordinary Civil Court with all its lengthy procedures as a forum for realisation of loan given by a financial institution and substitute in its place a Special Court, namely, the Artha Rin Adalat, with some special procedures for the purpose of minimizing delay but the action will nevertheless be in the form of a suit involving all other allied laws, namely, the Court Fees Act, the Limitation Act, the Code of Civil Procedure (to the extent made applicable).
Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs. Jahan Ara Akhter and another, 16 BLD (AD) 231.

Every applicant to whom loan is sanctioned shall be required, amongst other things, to execute a mortgage deed under HBFC. Loan Regulations, 1977.
BHBFC vs A Mannan, Advocate 41 DLR (AD) 143.

Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation Loan Regulations, 1977 and 1996:
Under both the repealed Regulations, 1977 and Regulations, 1996 the BHBFC is permitted to charge simple interest on all loans, not the penal interest. ...A N M Abdul Halim Vs. BHBFC, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 113 ....View Full Judgment

Recovery of loan money by sale of mortgaged property —
Where in a case the outstanding loan money is admittedly due and the petitioner did not contest in the misc. petition even after service of notice, the order passed by the District Judge in accordance with the provisions of the P.O. 7 of 1973 and having been affirmed by the High Court Division, the apex court held the said order perfectly justified and found nothing to interfere. Syed Ehsanul Hossain and another Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 29.