SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(SC) 192

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.L. KAPUR, A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Raj Rajendra Sardar Moloji Nar Singh Rao Shitole, Appellant
Versus
Shankar Saran and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No, 24 of 1960,
30th April, 1962
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. P. W. Sahasrabudhe and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. G. C. Mathur, Advocate with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.SEN, G.C.MATHUR, G.S.PATHAK, I.M.SHROFF, P.V.Sahasrabudhe

Headnote:Judgment by Foreign Court—SUBSEQUENT POLITICAL CHANGES - GOVERNMENT PLEADER - RULES OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW NOT PROCEDURAL - SUBSEQUENT POLITICAL CHANGES—WHETHER WILL CHANGE NATURE OF THE JUDGMENT – JUDGMENT OF FOREIGN COURT AGAINST A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGNER – SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

       cannot change the nature of the judgment delivered by a court which was a foreign court when it pronounced that judgment

       2. Government may have as many pleaders as it likes to conduct its cases even as any client, who has a crowd of cases to be conducted, may engage a battery of lawyers - Mudrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, or continued by the Central Government

       -rules laid down in Section 13 are rules of substantive law and not merely rules of procedure - Raj Rajendra Sardar Moleji Nar Singh v. Shankar Saran, AIR 1962 SC 1737; Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., AIR 1964 SC 538.

       -held no. In Raj Rajendra Sardar Moleji Nar Singh v. Shankar Saran, AIR 1962 SC 1737, effect of political changes discussed.

       -who has not submitted to its jurisdiction is a nullity by international law and must be regarded as a nullity by the Courts of every state - Raj Rajendra Sardar Moleji Nar Singh v. Shankar Saran, AIR 1962 SC 1737, Lalji v. Hansraj, AIR 1971 SC 974.

       

       -under this Section only those decrees can be executed which have been passed by Civil Courts established in parts of India to which the provisions of the Code do not extend or by the Courts established or continued by the authority of the Central Government outside India

       

Judgment

KAPUR J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad holding that the execution of the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, dated November 18, 1948, in favour of the appellant against the respondents was not executable at Allahabad. The appellant in this court is the decree-holder and the respondents are the judgment-debtors.

2. For the decision of this appeal it is necessary to deal with the various Statutes, Orders and agreements as a result of which the erstwhile Indian state of Gwalior became a part of the territories of the Union of India governed by one Civil Procedural law. It will also be necessary to refer to the various changes in the law of civil procedure applicable at the various stages of the litigation leading to this appeal.

3. We Shall first deal with the integration of the Indian State of Gwalior with the Indian Union. Upto August 15,1947, i.e., before the Independence of India under the Indian Independence Act (10 & 11 Geo. Ch. 30) Gwalior was what was termed under the Government of India Act of 1935 an Indian State and its Courts were foreign courts within S. 2(5) of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure. After independence by S. 7(1) (b) of that Act the suzerainty of the British Crown lapsed and so also all treaties, agreements and obligations which had previously been entered into between the Rulers Indian Sates and the British Crown. The second question can conveniently be dealt with at a later and appropriate stage.

4. By the Instrument of Accession which by August 15, 1947 (p. 36 of white Paper on Indian States), was entered into between the Ruler of the State of Gwalior and the Dominion of India certain subjects mentioned in the schedule to that Instrument were transferred to the Dominion of India but Civil Procedure was not one of them. By a covenant signed in April, 1948 the Rulers of Gwalior, Indore and certain other States in Central India formed the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa which was termed United State (Madhya Bharat). By a fresh instrument of Accession executed on July 19, 1948, the United State acceded to the Dominion of India and when the Constitution came into force it became Madhya Bharat - Part B State-and was governed by the provisions of the Constitution as applicable to such States. This then was the process of transformation of the Indian State of Gwalior into a part of the Republic of India.

5. On May 15, 1947, the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Judge. Gwalior, for recovery of Rs. 6,92,236-15-0 against the respondents, who are the sons and legal representatives of the late Munshi Ishwar Saran. The writs of summons were served on the respondents on September 12, 1947, but they did not appear in the Court of the Additional District Judge who actually tried the suit. On November 18,1947, the trial judge ordered the suit to proceed ex parte and on November 18, 1948, the claim was decreed with costs and interest. On August 9, 1949, the appellant made an application to the Court of the Additional District Judge praying for transfer of the decree for execution to the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, where the properties of the father of the respondents were situate. On April 25, 1950, the Court passed the following order :-

"I order transfer of this execution case, A certificate of transfer relating to non-satisfaction of decree be issued to the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Allahabad, for execution proceedings. This execution case be dismissed".

6. On September 14, 1951, another order was made sending the decree for execution to the Court of the Civil Judge, 1st Grade, Allahabad. Along with it a copy of the order dated April 25, 1950, was also sent. The order was as follows :-

"Order dated: l4th September, 1951, for transfer of decree to another court for execution.

Whereas in the above mentioned case the applicant submitted that the Judgment-debtor resided or held property within the local limits





















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top