9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nullity of the foreign judgment and decree. 2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3. Maintainability of the suit. 4. Applicability of Section 13 CPC to challenge the foreign judgment and decree. 5. Limitation period for filing the suit. Summary: Issue 1: Nullity of the Foreign Judgment and Decree The plaintiff challenged the foreign judgment and decree of the High Court of Justice, Queen's Division Bench, England, claiming it was obtained fraudulently and without proper service of summons. The court examined whether the foreign judgment was conclusive u/s 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court found that the judgment was given ex parte due to the plaintiff's non-appearance and did not address the merits of the case, thus failing to meet the requirements of Section 13(b) CPC, which mandates that a foreign judgment must be given on the merits to be conclusive. Issue 2: Territorial Jurisdiction The court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the defendants sought to enforce the decree within its jurisdiction, and the plaintiff resided and worked in Delhi. Therefore, the legality and validity of the enforcement of the decree had to be examined within the jurisdiction of this court. Issue 3: Maintainability of the Suit The defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable. However, the court noted that both the objections to the execution and the suit had to be examined together. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not devoid of a remedy to object to the execution of the decree. Issue 4: Applicability of Section 13 CPC The court reiterated that the foreign judgment did not meet the parameters of Section 13(b) CPC as it was not given on the merits of the case. The judgment was based solely on the plaintiff's failure to appear, and there was no evidence that the merits of the controversy were examined by the foreign court. Issue 5: Limitation Period The defendants raised the plea of limitation, but no positive evidence was led in that regard. The court found that the plaintiff's objections to the execution and the suit for declaration and injunction were not barred by limitation. This aspect was not seriously contested by the defendants. Relief The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that the foreign judgment and decree were not conclusive and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said decree. The objections to the execution were upheld, and the execution petition was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
|
