LexROSHANLAL KUTHIALA & ORS. versus R. B. MOHAN SINGH OBERAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A B D F G H ROSHANLAL KUTHIALA .& ORS. v. R. B. MOHAN SINGH OBERAI October 11, 1974 4 9I . (H. R. KI:JANNA, M. H. BEG and V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure (Act S of !908) t. 13~Enforcement of foreign judgment. Limitation Act (9 of J90R), s. 14-Scope of. Pract/ce-Appllcatfon of equity by Indian Courts. The appellaot agreed to sell his hotel to the first respondent and the first res- pondent paid an earnest money of Rs. S lacs. Alleging a breach of contract the tlrst respondent flled,a suit in the sub-court Lahore, for return of the earnest money, and the suit was decreed. The appellant filed an appeal.to the High Court at Lahore and the execution of the decree was stayed on condition of his depositing Rs. 3 lacs. The appellant deposited the amount but the decree holder (first reSpondent), on objection by the appellant, wa.S not allowed to withdraw the amount before the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was allowed by the High Court, alid there· after, the appellant moved the High Court for refund of the deposit made by him. The Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, having come into force by then, notice was given by the High Court to the Custodian and the Custodian prayed for staying the return of the amount on the gro'und that the appe- llant was an evacuee and also for the payment of the amount' in deposit to the Custo- dian. The amoun~ however continued to be in deposit in court. The respondent. appealed to tbe Federal Court of Pakistan against the Judgment of the High Court and. his appeal was allowed. The amount, however, continued to be in tfie Pakis- tan Treasury. In January, 1954, the appellant filed &. petition in the High Court ·of Lahore praying, that the amount of Rs. 3 lacs deposited by him may be directed to be·adjusted towards the satisfaction of the decree as orginally intended, &nd that his request for the refund may be treated as withdrawn, and that the objections tiled by the Custodian dismissed. As a result of political understanding between the two countries; court deposits were agreed to be tran.qferred to the respective countries. Oa the strength of that law in Pakistan the respondent moved the High Court at Lahore for transfer of'the· deposit of Rs. 3 lacs to the concerned officer or authority in India on the ground that the money was deposited in part satisfaction o.f his decree. T.he High Court dismissed the application but the Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed it and dl.recterl the transfer of the deposit to the concerned autho- rity in India after dismissing the Custodian's objections. But the deposit conti· nued in the Pakistan Treas~;~ry. The respondent thereupon moved the High Court of Punjab in India for leyying execution of his decree and invoked the provisiolb of the lndian ·Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947. The High Court dismissed the execution appJi. cation. Jn appeal, the Supreme Court of Jndia held that the forum for enforcement and the process for getting relief and execution of the fore'gn decree was a suit under ss. 9 and 13, .Civil Procedure Code, in the Compdent Court. The respon- dent thereupon filed a suit for recovery of the decree amount based on the forei$D judgment in his favour and the trial couit and tlie High Court. in appe~al, "decided m his favour. In appeal, to this Court, it was contended by the appellant. :· d> that the decree of the Federal Court of Pakistan which was the foundation of the action in India had vested automatically in the Custodian under the Pakistan Ordinance of 1949, and that therefore. the respondent had no right to recover on the basis of the foreign judgment; (2} the six years period available under art. 117 of the Jndiau Limitation Act, 1908 for a suit upon a foreigri decree having expired long ago the suit was barred by .limitation; and (3) in any event,th e sum of Rs. 3 lacs already deposited to the credit of the decree in the Lahore Court, having been actually ad· .lusted towards the. decree, the appellant would be liable only for a sum of R,a. 2 lacs together with subsequent interest. 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 s.c.tt Allowing the appeal on the la:st ground, HELD : 1. (a) A foreign judgment is enforceable by a suit upon the judgment and it shall be c9nclusivc as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon bet~n the same parties subject· to the ~ceptions enumerated ins. 13, C.P.C. In the present case, th.e J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.