LexSHALIGRAM versus DAULAT RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
57• SUPREME OOURT REPOltTS [1963)
1962
SHALIGRAM
v.
DAULAT RAM
(J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA,
N. RAJAOOPALA AYYA.NOAR and
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Foreign
Decree-E:recution-.Judgment-Debtor Submit·
tin{l to jurisdictirm of rourt-Decree if exl'cutablc again8t him.
The High Court of Bombay passc:I a decree against three
defendants who were resident of the fo!"mer state of Hydera ...
bad.
Before it was pa5'ed the .appellant had applied for leave
to defend which was conditionally granted and on his failure
an ex-partc decree was passed. The appellant did not file
any written statement. On transfer, the re,p>ndent took out
execution in the Court of District Judge, Bhir, to which the
c..ppcllant object on the ground inter.alia, that the der.ree was
a foreign decree and could not be executed· in the C::>urt at
Bhir, which being overruled, ;in appeal wa• taken to the liigh
Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground
that the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Bombay Hig!> Court.
Htld that a person who appeared in obedience to the ·
process or'a foreign qourt an~ app~ie~ for leave to defend the
•uit without challenging the JUI1Sd1cuon of the Court must be
held to have voluntarlly submitted to the jurisdiction of such
Court and therefore this decree did not suffer from any defect
which a foreign decree would suffer v.dthout such submission.
Shaile Atham Sahih v. Da!JUd Sahib, (1909) I. L R. 32
Mad. 469, referred to.
HtUl, further, that as the Code of Civil Procedure was
)..
made applicable to Hyderabad State when order of transfer
was made, the decree could be exocuted there.
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
N-0. 225 of l!IBI.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
October 24, 1958, of the Bombaf High Coiut hi.
,
411
L. .f. A. No. 50 of 1958.
2 S.C.R.
SUPaEME OOURT REPORTS
575
Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
M.•8. K. 8astri and M. 8. Narasi,mkan,
for
the repondents.
_
1962. April 30. The· Judgment of the Coiirt
was delivered by
JU.FUR, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate of
the High Court under Art.
133(1) (c) of the Consti-
tution against the judgment and order of the· High
Court of Bombay. The appellant was the judge-
ment-debtor
and the
decree-holder
is
the
respondent.
The decree was passed in August 26, 1931 in
Summary 8uit No. 3437 of_ 1930 by the High Court
of Bombay against three defendants: who were resi-
dents of Parbhani district in the former State -of
Hyderabad. Before the decree was passed the appel-
lant had applied for leave to defend and leave was
conditionally grnnted 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 o bjeotion was taken by the .appellant, imer alia,
"*
odn. t~e grofunhd thBat hbe hadH~oht suCbmittedhto the juri-
s 10tion o t e
om ay
1g
ourt w ioh 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 appel-
lant 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 ·
.11161
ShGligmm
••
DtiulolRam
Kapur J.
llHt
576
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [UHl81
Letters Patent appeal againat that judgment was
.r-
diemiBBed in limine on Ootober 24, 1958. It is agai·
llllt that order that the appeal has been brought OJI
the certificate or the High Court under Art. l33(l)(c).
A person who appeal'IJ in obedience to the pro-
cel!8 of a foreign Court and applies for leave to de-
f
fend 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 1ubmitted to
.._ ., r
jurisdiction of 1uch Court Shaikh Atham Sahib v.
DafJUd Sahib(l). Therefore it cannot be said that
thiB decree suffered from the defects which a foreign
ex·parle decree without such submission would suf-
fer from. The order for transfer was made at Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.