2022 (1) TMI 1312 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - Relegation to file a petition for execution of a money decree dated 7th February, 2006 (in excess of Rs. 20 lakhs) of a foreign Court indisputedly notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory before the District Court in view of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that so far as the expression superior Court of any reciprocating territory as defined under Section 44A of the Code is concerned, the judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 has been passed by the notified superior Court of the reciprocating territory, namely, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the meaning of Section 44A of the Code vide notification dated 1st March, 1953 issued by the Ministry of Law, thus it leaves no doubt that the decree of the High Court of England would be considered to be a decree of superior Court of a reciprocating territory. Section 44A of the Code provides for execution of decrees passed by the foreign Courts in reciprocating territories. It, inter alia, stipulates that where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Court of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by a District Court. Together with the certified copy of the decree, a certificate from such superior court is to be filed stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted. Such a certificate is the conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment - The ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court is always exercised, based on pecuniary limits. It would be impossible to read into Section 44A of the Code that even though the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Court is restricted, still for the purpose of execution of a foreign decree, it becomes the District Court in respect to those matters which fall within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court and the expression district defined under Section 2(4) of the Code will have to be given its true effect. The Division Bench has proceeded on the basis of the expression District Court , as being referred under Section 44A of the Code but it has not taken into consideration the other relevant provisions of which a reference has been made by us while coming to the conclusion that the expression District as defined under Section 2(4) of the Code only lays down the limits of the jurisdiction of the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction and that includes the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court and once the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeds as being notified under the relevant statute, the jurisdiction vests exclusively with the High Court as an ordinary original civil jurisdiction for execution of a foreign decree under Section 44A subject to the just objections which are available to the parties/judgment debtor as envisaged under Section 13 of the Code. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi in executing a foreign money decree.
2. Interpretation of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Pecuniary limits and original civil jurisdiction under Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
4. Execution of foreign decrees and the role of District Courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi in Executing a Foreign Money Decree:
The appellant, a decree holder, challenged the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi's judgment dated 1st July 2014, which relegated the execution of a foreign money decree to the District Court under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court noted that the decree holder obtained a money decree from a foreign court (UK) on 7th February 2006, which is recognized as a superior court of a reciprocating territory. Despite the decree being more than 16 years old, the forum for its execution remained unclear.

2. Interpretation of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Section 44A allows for the execution of decrees from superior courts in reciprocating territories in India as if they were passed by a District Court. The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi held that Section 44A confers an independent right on a foreign decree holder and that the High Court of Delhi does not qualify as a District Court for the purpose of executing such decrees. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the term "District Court" includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court, thereby allowing the High Court of Delhi to execute foreign decrees exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. Pecuniary Limits and Original Civil Jurisdiction under Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966:
The appellant argued that the High Court of Delhi has ordinary original civil jurisdiction for suits exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs (later revised to Rs. 2 crores). The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the High Court of Delhi, when dealing with suits exceeding its pecuniary limits, acts as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. Therefore, it can execute foreign decrees under Section 44A of the Code, provided the decree's value exceeds the pecuniary limits.

4. Execution of Foreign Decrees and the Role of District Courts:
The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi had directed the execution petition to be transferred to the District Court, stating that Section 44A exclusively confers jurisdiction on District Courts for executing foreign decrees. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the High Court of Delhi, with its pecuniary jurisdiction, qualifies as a principal civil court of original jurisdiction for executing foreign decrees. The Court noted that execution proceedings are a continuation of the original suit, and the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to execute such decrees.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench's judgment, restoring the execution petition to the High Court of Delhi. It directed the Division Bench to prioritize and decide the matter expeditiously, considering the long delay in executing the foreign decree. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court of Delhi was recognized as having jurisdiction to execute the foreign decree under Section 44A of the Code, subject to the pecuniary limits specified in Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.