The Defendant-Judgment Debtor challenged the order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Nashik, rejecting the Petitioner’s Application for declaration that the recovery proceeding filed by the Respondents-original Plaintiffs be disposed of/dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or even otherwise on facts and further holding that the execution proceeding filed by Respondents being maintainable and the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court was executable before District Court at Nashik. The Respondents-original Plaintiffs filed a Suit against the Petitioner-original Defendant in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in England. In the said Suit, the Petitioner preferred Application dated 11th May, 2006 for declaration that the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, U.K. would have no jurisdiction to entertain the Claim. The said Application was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, by an order dated 19th October, 2006 and imposed a cost in the sum of £12,429.75 equivalent to Rs. 10,16,753.55 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Thereafter, the Respondents-original Plaintiffs filed Special (Civil) Darkhast in the Court of District Judge-2, Nashik for execution of the order passed by the Foreign Court, for recovery of sum of Rs. 10,16,753.55 towards decretal amount under Order dated 19th October, 2006 (costs) and Rs. 67,786/- towards interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the principal amount from the date of the order date i.e. 19th October, 2006 to 14th August, 2007 and further interest till the recovery of the amount. In the said Execution Petition, the Petitioner preferred on 1st March, 2008 an application for declaration that the Execution Application filed by the Respondents is not maintainable as the same is in respect of the costs imposed by a foreign Court. At the time of dismissing the Petitioner’s Interim Application, whereas, the main matter was still pending for hearing and final disposal. This Application for declaration was rejected by the District Judge-2, Nashik by impugned order dated 15th April, 2011 and hence, the Civil Revision Application was filed before the Hon’ble Court.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the explanation in section 44A of Code of Civil Procedure shows that the legislature has intentionally included the term judgment within the meaning of the term decree, for purpose of section 44A of CPC. The intention was to expand or enlarge the scope of term decree for the purpose of this section. Therefore, an order which may not amount to a decree but may amount to judgment would be a “judgment” for the purpose of section 44A of CPC. Thus, awarding costs would amount to decree within the meaning of section 44A and these can be recovered by executing order u/s. 44A of the CPC.
The issue of jurisdiction of the Court to execute order/decree of a country having reciprocal arrangement with our country was decided by the Division Bench of the Court in the matter of Janardhan Mohandas Rajan Pillai (deceased through Lrs.) & Anr. (2010) 4 AIR Bom R. 230. Therefore, the Execution Petition filed by the Respondents for execution of the order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the English Court was maintainable.
Alcon Electronics P. Ltd vs. Celem S A AIR 2013 Bom 108.
