Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It, therefore, follows that the law applicable in the present case is one that was in force during January, 1951, when the decrees in question were passed and it is to be seen if at that time these decrees which are now being sought to be executed were foreign decrees of Faridkot and Kapurthala or they are to be considered as domestic decrees. (In this judgment the words "decree" and "judgment" have been used interchangeably). The leading decision in this matter is a decision or the Privy Council in Gurdyal Singh v. Raja of Faridkot, ILR 22 Cal 222.

"Any decree passed by-

(a) a civil court in a Part B State, or

(b) a civil Court in any area within Part A State or within Part C State to which the provisions relating to execution do not extend, or

(c) x x x xx may, if it cannot be executed within the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was passed be executed in manner herein provided within the jurisdiction of any Court in the States."

If all the adaptations are applied with mutatis mutandis clause to the Pepsu Code of Civil Procedure, then it follows that decrees passed in Part A and Part C States would be considered foreign decrees in Pepsu, State and under Section 43 they would be executed in Pepsu State subject to Section 13 of the Code. The result is that any decree passed in Part A and Part C States during January 1951 can be enforced in Pepsu Courts only in accordance with statutory provisions in force there and under those provisions it is open to the judgment-debtors concerned to challenge the competency of the decreeing Court to pass the decrees in question. Formerly such decrees could be enforced by suits only but now under the statutory and constitutional provisions this can be done by an application for execution.

24. Mr. Dalip Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the decree-holders, relies on Maloji Rap Narsingh Rao v. Sankar Saran, (S) AIR 1955 All 490, Premchand v. Danmal, AIR 1954 Raj 4, Firm Shah Kantilal v. Dominion of India, AIR 1954 Cal 67, Ramkishan v. Harmukharai, (S) AIR 1955 Nag 103, and Subbaraya Setty and Sons v. Palani Chetty and Sons, AIR 1952 Mys. 69 and contends that the decrees in question must be treated as decrees of foreign Courts qua the Pepsu Courts in which they were sought to be executed and as they had been obtained ex parte without the defendants having submitted to the jurisdiction of the respective Courts passing the decrees, the decrees must be treated as absolute nullities and were inexecutable, Mr. D. S. Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the decree-holders, relies on Bhagwan Shankar v. Raja Ram, AIR 1951 Bom. 125 (FB), Chunnilal Kasturchand v. Dundappa Damappa, AIR 1951 Bom 190, Firm Lunaji Narayan v. Purshottam Charan, AIR 1953 Madh-B. 225, Meherunnissa v. Venkat Murli, AIR 1955 Hyd 184, D. C. Machine Co. v. Syed Jahangir, AIR 1953 Hyd 19, Radheyshiam v. Firm Swami Modi Basdev Prasad, AIR 1953 Raj 204 (FB) and Murari Lal v. Firm Bhagwandas Gurdyal, (S) AIR 1955 J and K 5 (FB) and urges that the decrees passed in these cases could not be treated as nullities and could be executed by Courts in Pepsu.

It is obvious that all the rulings quoted by the learned counsel for the parties excepting (S) AIR 1955 J and K 5 (FB) relate to execution of decrees obtained before the enforcement o£ the Constitution of India. The main ratio decidendi in the rulings quoted by Mr. Dalip Chand Gupta is that the Constitution is not retrospective and therefore Article 261 of the Constitution of India cannot be made applicable for the purpose of enabling the pre-Con-stitution decrees to be executed.

The view taken in the cases quoted by Mr, Nehra is that the situation as on the date of execution is to be seen and if on the date of execution the impediment in its way caused by the foreign element of the States has been removed the rule of international law cannot stand in the way of execution of the decrees. In (S) AIR 1955 J. and K. 5 (FB) the view taken by the Full Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is that Article 261 overrides the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the decrees passed by Part A States in India are liable to be executed in Jammu and Kashmir as domestic decrees and that the rules of international law have become altogether foreign qua them.