Penelitian ini menganalis sengketa yang teijadi pada tahun 2004, antara H. F.ffendi bin Rajab (debitur) dengan Bank Bukopin Cabang Syariab Bukittinggi (kreditur). Hubungan hukum kcduanya berawal dari take over yang kemudian diikat dengan aknd pernbiayaan Murabahah. Sengketa muncul ketika teijadi kredit maeet. Pihak Bank Bukopin Syariab tidak menempuh penyelesaian melalui BAMUJ (sesuai dengan aknd), aknn tetapi langsung melalui penetapan Sita Eksekusi melalui Pengadilan Negeri. Kemudian H. Effendi bin Rajab melakukan Perlawanan ke Pengadilan Negeri Bukittinggi. Akan tetapi perlawanannya ditolak. Tahun 2006, saat Undang·undang No. 3 Tabun 2006 Tentang Peradilan Agama berlakn,H. Effendi menggugat Bank Bukopin Cabang Syariab Bukittinggi ke Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi. Pengadilan Agama pun menerima dan mengabulkan gugatan H. EffendL Akan tetapi di tingkat banding, Pengadilan Tinggi Agama Padang membatalkan putusan Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi, dan menyatakan Pengadilan Agama Bukittinggi tidak berwenang mengadili perknra dimaksud. Pada tingkat Kasasi, Mabkamah Agung menguatkan putusan Pengadilan Tinggi. Oleh karena terjadi perbedaan pendapat antar tingkat lembaga peradilan agama, maka. pedu diteliti sengketa apa sesungguhnya yang terjadi dan lembaga penyelesaian manakah yang berwenang memeriksa dan mengadili perkara ini. Metode yang digunaknn untuk penelitian ini adalah pendekatan studi kasus, yaitu menitikberatkan penelitian terhadap putusan Mabkamah Agung No. 292 KIAG/2008, yang ditunjang dengan data kepustakaan, Kesimpulannya sengketa yang terjadi dalam kasus lni sebenarnya adalah sengketa kredit macet, yang objek jarninannya diletakkan Sita Eksekusi dan Lelang Eksekusi oleh Pengadtlan Negeri, dan bukan perkara Perbuatan Melawan Hukum. Sedangkan lembaga yang berwenang menyelesaikan permasalaban ini adalah sesuai dengan pilihan penyelesaian sengketa yang tercantum dalam akad Ar/urabahah yaitu BAMUI.

---

This research analyzes a dispute occurring in 2004, between H. Effendi bin Rajah (debtor) and Bank Bukopin Syariab Branch of Bukittinggi (creditor). Their legal relation was started from a take over which was subsequently bound by a Murabahah financing agreement. The dispute arose when bad debt occurred. Bank Bukopin Syariab did not procure settlement through BAMUI (pursuant to the agreement), but directly through a foreclosure decision through the District Court. Thereafter H. Effendi bin Rajah filed an objection to the District Court ofBukittinggi, but his objection was rejected In 2006, when Law No. 3 of 2006 regarding Religious Court took effect, H. Effendi sued Bank Bukopin of Syariab Bmnch of Bukittinggi to Religious Court of Bukittinggi. The Religious Court accepted and granted the suit of H. Effendi. However, at the appeal !evethe Religious High Court of Padang cancelled the ruling of the Religious Court of Bukittinggi, and declared that the Religious Court ofBukittinggi had no jurisdiction to try the concerned court case, At Cassation level, the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's ruling.

Since there was different opinion among religious courts. it is necessary to examine what the real case is and which dispute settlement institution has the jurisdiction to examine and try this court case. Method used in this research is case study approach, which gives emphasis to examining the rrding of the Supreme Court No. 292 K/AGI2008, supported by bibHographical data. The conclusion is that the dispute in this court case is actually a dispute of bed debt, the collateral of which was put in Foreclosure and Foreclosure Sale by District Court but not as illegal action. While the institution that has the jurisdiction to settle this matter is in accordance with the choice of