9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi 2. Bar of Limitation 3. Equitable Adjustment Detailed Analysis: Locus Standi The appellant contended that the decree of the Federal Court of Pakistan, which was the foundation of the present action, had vested automatically in the Custodian under the Pakistan Ordinance of 1949, and therefore, the plaintiff Oberoi had no right to recover on the basis of the foreign judgment. The plaintiff's counter-argument was that a foreign judgment is enforceable by a suit upon the judgment which creates an obligation between the parties, and none of the exceptions in Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) were applicable. The court found that the decree was not treated as evacuee property by the Custodian, and thus, the plaintiff retained the right to sue for the amount. Bar of Limitation The appellant argued that the six-year limitation period under Article 117 of the Indian Limitation Act for a suit upon a foreign decree had expired. The plaintiff sought to salvage his action by relying on Sections 14 and 19 of the Limitation Act. The court concluded that Section 14, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting a case in good faith in a court without jurisdiction, applied to the present case. The court found that the execution proceedings were repelled due to jurisdictional issues, thus attracting the exclusionary operation of Section 14. Equitable Adjustment The appellant argued that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 had already been deposited to the credit of the decree in the Lahore Court and should be adjusted towards the decree amount. The court noted that both parties had agreed in the Pakistan Court that the deposit should go towards the satisfaction of the decree. The court held that the entire deposit and any accretions would belong to and be withdrawable only by the decree-holder. The court directed that the decree amount as of March 31, 1954, inclusive of costs incurred, be calculated, and Rs. 3,00,000 be deducted. The balance would carry 5% interest from that date. Conclusion The court dismissed the appeal substantially but allowed it in part by directing the equitable adjustment of the deposit amount. The executing court was instructed to quantify the amount currently recoverable and proceed with the execution. The court aimed to balance law and equity to resolve the long-standing dispute.
|
