Skip to content


Shaligram Vs. Daulat Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1967SC739; (1963)65BOMLR331; 1963MhLJ941(SC); [1963]2SCR574
ActsConstitution of India - Article 133(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
AppellantShaligram
RespondentDaulat Ram
Cases ReferredCourt Shaikh Atham Sahib v. Davud Sahib I.L.R.
Excerpt:
.....- article 133 (1) of constitution of india and code of civil procedure, 1908 - decree passed by bombay high court against appellant judgment debtor residents of former state of hyderabad - decree transferred for execution to district judge bhir in hyderabad states - objection by appellant on ground that he had not submitted statement to jurisdiction of bombay high court which was a foreign court - decree was a foreign decree and could not be executed in court at bhir - order for transfer was made at time when indian code of civil procedure became applicable to whole of india including former territories of hyderabad state - held, order of transfer was valid and effective and decree could therefore be executed. - - this, he did not do and on his failure to do as an ex-parte decree..........by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the bombay high court which was a foreign court and therefore the decree was a foreign decree and could not be executed in the court at bhir. this objection was overruled. against that order appeal was taken to the high court and it was held by that court on july 29, 1958 that the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the bombay high court and the appeal was therefore dismissed and the order of the executing court upheld. the letters patent appeal against that judgment was dismissed in limine on october 24, 1958. it is against that order that the appeal has been brought on the certificate of the high court under art. 133(1)(c). 3. a person who appears in obedience to the process of a.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

1. This is an appeal on a certificate of the High Court under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay. The appellant was the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder is the respondent.

2. The decree was passed in August 26, 1931 in Summary Suit No. 3437 of 1930 by the High Court of Bombay against three defendents who were residents of Parbhani district in the former State of Hyderabad. Before the decree was passed the appellant had applied for leave to defend and leave was conditionally granted on his depositing Rs. 5,000/- within four weeks. This, he did not do and on his failure to do as an ex-parte decree was granted for Rs. 52,032-7-0 including costs and future interest at 6% per annum. The appellant did not file any written statement. The decree was transferred for execution to the District Judge. Bhir, in Hyderabad States. The respondent took out execution on June 18, 1954 in the Court of the District Judge, Bhir, to which objection was taken by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court which was a foreign court and therefore the decree was a foreign decree and could not be executed in the Court at Bhir. This objection was overruled. Against that order appeal was taken to the High Court and it was held by that Court on July 29, 1958 that the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and the appeal was therefore dismissed and the order of the Executing Court upheld. The Letters Patent appeal against that judgment was dismissed in limine on October 24, 1958. It is against that order that the appeal has been brought on the certificate of the High Court under Art. 133(1)(c).

3. A person who appears in obedience to the process of a foreign Court and applies for leave to defend the suit without objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court when he is not compellable by law to do so must be held to have voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction of such Court Shaikh Atham Sahib v. Davud Sahib I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 469. Therefore it cannot be said that this decree suffered from the defects which a foreign ex-parte decree without such submission would suffer from. The order for transfer was made at a time when the Indian Code of Civil Procedure became applicable to the whole of India including the former territories of Hyderabad State. The Order of transfer was therefore valid and effective and the decree could therefore be executed.

4. The appeal, in our opinion, is without merit and is therefore dismissed with costs.

5. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //