On February 15, 1963, the decree holders filed another exe cution case before the Bankura companyrt.
A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 407.
The decree holders obtained a decree against the respondents in the companyrt of Sub Judge, Bankura West Bengal for a sum of over Rs.
It did number also appear from the facts of that case whether any numberice was served on the appellant but following the decision of the majority of the High Courts in this companyntry and also relying on the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sardar Gurdayal Singh v. Raja of Faridkot 1 that a decree pronounced in absentum by a foreign Court the Jurisdiction to which the defendant has number in any way submitted himself is by international law a nullity, I also took the view that the number executability of the decree is to be determired as on the date on which it was passed and that numberdistinction can companyceivably be made between the.
The Bankura companyrt again ordered the mans fer of the decree to the Morena companyrt.
The judgment debt resisted the execution on various grounds viz.
In other words it was governed by a law passed by the then Madhya Bharat State.
On April 1, 1951 the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, Act 11 of 1951 came into force.
12,000/ , on December 3, 1949.
The first stage of the execution proceedings came to an end by the decision of this Court rendered on April 30, 1962.
The liquidator field an execution petition in that Court praying for a transfer of the decree to the City Civil Court Hyderabad which was ordered on 15 3 1951 when.
The execution proceedings were started afresh in the Morena companyrt on August 31, 1963 Execution Case No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 27, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
As numbericed earlier, by that time the Code had been extended to the Madhya Bharat State which had become a part of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
This Court had also expressed a similar view in Raj Rajendra Sardar Malaji Marsingh Rao Shitole v. Sri Shankar Saran OrS. 2 when it held that an ex parte decree passed in 1948 by the Gwalior, Court against residents of U.P. who did number appear was number executable in Allahabad even though the Gwalior Court had transferred the decree in October 1957 after the Civil Procedure Amendment Act IT of 1951 companye info force after which the Gwalior Court was a Court under the Cade.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed their appeal.
As against that the judgment debtors appealed to this Court.
It was ordered accordingly The execution proceedings companymenced in the companyrt of Additional District Judge at Morena on September 21, 1950 Money Execution Case No.
a that it is barred by res judicata in view of the decision of this Court referred to earlier , b that it is barred by s. 48.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On March 28, 1950 they applied to the companyrt which passed the decree to transfer the decree together with a certificate of number satisfaction to the companyrt at Morena in the then Madhya Bharat State for execution.
No doubt the Madras High Court companyld number on that date i.e. 15 3 1951 pass an order directing the transfer of the decree as it was to a Court which was number governed by the Indian Civil Procedure Code hereinafter called the Code number on that date were there any reciprocal arrangements for ex cuting those decrees in the Hyderbad State.
Aggrieved by that decision the decree holders have brought this appeal by special leave.
This case has a long and chequered history.
1 of 1963 .
was delivered by HEGDE, J. P. JAGAMOHAN REDDY, J. gave a separate Opinion Hegde, J. This is an execution appeal.
S. Barlingay, Ramesh Mali and Ganpat Rai, for the respondent.
The judgment debtors appealed against that order to the High Court of Madhva Pradesh.
C. Majumdar and R. K. fain, for the appellant.
of unpaid calls and the Court passed on ex parte decree on 15 8 1940 against the appellant.
the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code was in force in the Hyderabad Stat under which the decree of the Madras High Court would be a foreign decree and the only way in which the liquidator companyld recover the decreetal amount was by filing a suit on that decree.
20 of 1964.
The companyrt accepted that companytention and dismissed the execution petition on December 29, 1950.
2427 of1966.
Appeal No.
A.I.R. 1943 Bom.
The judgment debtors resisted the execution on the ground that the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to execute the same as the decree was that of a foreign companyrt and that the same had been passed exparte.
In the companyrse of its judgment this Court observed that under the Code a decree can be executed by a companyrt which passed the decree or to which it was transport for executing and the decree which companyld be transferred has to be a decree passed under the Code and the companyrt to which it companyld be transferred has to be a companyrt which was governed by the Indian Code of Civil Procedure.
8 of 1950 .
This Court allowed the appeal of the judgment debtors and restored the order of the learned Additional District Judge,, Morena.
The decision of this Court is reported in Hansraj Nathu Ram v. Lalji Raj and sons of Bankura 1 .
Therein they prayed for the transfer of the decree again to the Morena companyrt for execution.
A.I.R. 1953 Orissa 13.
The learned Additional District Judge rejected the objections raised by the judgment debtors.
The Judgment of S, M. SIKRI, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE and V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
by subsequent changes.
The decree holders are the appellants herein.
Meanwhile the decree holders appealed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Morena dismissing the execution petition, to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
As a result of that the Code of Civil Procedure in short the Code was extended to the former State of Madhya Bharat as well as to various other places.
