Back
1916 Supreme(SC) 74
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BUCKMASTER L.C., LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE., LORD WRENBURY, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
KEYMER - Appellant
Versus
P. VISVANATHAM REDDI - Respondents
On Appeal From The High Court at Madras.
Decided On : November 14, 1916.
Solicitors for appellant:Reynolds & Son. Solicitor for respondent: John Josselyn.
A foreign judgment entered after striking out a defendant's defence for failure to answer interrogatories is not a judgment "given on the merits of the case" under Section 13(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the actual controversy was not directly adjudicated.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 13(6) - Foreign judgment - Conclusiveness - Judgment not given on the merits - Where a defendant's defence is struck out due to failure to answer interrogatories and judgment is entered on that basis, such judgment is not considered to be given on the merits of the case - The controversy raised in the action must be the subject of direct adjudication by the Court to be deemed a judgment on the merits.
Facts of the case:
A merchant brought an action in a foreign court to recover a sum of money from a resident of another jurisdiction. The defendant entered an appearance but failed to comply with a court order to answer certain interrogatories. Consequently, the court struck out the defence and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently instituted a suit in a local court to recover the amount based on the foreign judgment. The defendant contended that the foreign judgment was not given on the merits of the action and thus fell within the exception provided under the applicable procedural code.
Findings of Court:
The foreign judgment was not a decision given on the merits of the case because the material matters in dispute, including the existence of a partnership and the underlying arrangement, were never investigated or adjudicated. The judgment was entered solely because the defendant failed to answer interrogatories, treating the defendant as if he had not defended the action.
Issues: Whether a judgment entered after the striking out of a defence for failure to answer interrogatories constitutes a judgment "given on the merits of the case" within the meaning of Section 13(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: For a foreign judgment to be conclusive, it must be given on the merits of the case. A judgment where the controversy has not been the subject of direct adjudication, such as when a defence is struck out for procedural default, does not satisfy this requirement.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
foreign judgments
- conclusiveness of foreign judgments
-
foreign judgments
-
civil procedure
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (November 6, 1914) reversing the judgment of Blakewell J. at the trial.
The appellant, who was a merchant in London, brought an action in the Kings Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England to recover from the defendant, who resided at Madras, 4251. 17 s. 2d., being the difference between the amount of bills drawn upon the appellant by a firm in which he alleged that the respondent was a partner and the value of the goods against which the bills were drawn. Leave was obtained to serve the writ out of the jurisdiction under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order xi., r. 1 (e). The respondent entered an appearance under protest and took proceed ings to set aside the writ and service, but his objection was disallowed by the Court of Appeal see [ 1912] 1
K. B. 215. He subsequently delivered a defence, and on February 11, 1913, was ordered to answer certain interrogatories. He failed to comply with that order, and the judge at chambers consequently made an order on May 5, 1913, that his defence should be struck out, and that the plaintiff (appellant) should be at liberty to sign judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Judgment
64 Law. Rep. 44 Ind. App. 6 ( 1916- 1917)
Keymer V. P. Visvanatham Reddi 165
was entered accordingly for 425Z. 175. 2d. and 1501. 16s. 1d., the amount at which the costs were taxed and allowed. On October 13, 1913, the appellant instituted the present suit in the High Court against the respondent. By his plaint he claimed the two above-mentioned sums (amounting to Rs.8649) under the judgment, and alleged that the present cause of action arose at Madras on July 14, 1913, when the defendant upon demand failed to satisfy his claim. The defendant (respondent) by his written statement pleaded that he was not bound by the judgment of the Kings Bench Division on the grounds (1.) that that Court had no jurisdiction, and (2.) that the judgment was ex parte and was not given after a trial upon the merits.
Blakewell J. delivered judgment for the appellant. Upon appeal the Court (Wallis and Aiyer JJ.) reversed that judgment. The learned judges held that the judgment sued on was one " not given on the merits " within the meaning of s. 13 (6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The case is reported at
I. L. R. 39 Madr. 95.
1916. Nov. 14. Sir R. Finlay, K.C., and Dunne, for the appellant. Under s. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the judgment sued on is conclusive between the parties and amounted to an estoppel; the judgment is not within the exception in sub-s. (6). The respondent, by failing to comply with the order to answer interrogatories and by allowing his defence to be struck out, must be taken to have admitted the facts alleged. The judgment was a final and conclusive decision of the case by a Court of competent jurisdiction. [Reference was made to Ram Chand v. Bartlett ( 1909 P. R. 263, 282.), Moazzim Hossein Khan v. Robinson (( 1901) I. L. R. 28 Calc. 641.), The Delta (( 1876) 1 P. D. 393.), Harris v. Quine (( 1869) L. R. 4 Q.B. 653.), Emanuel v. Symons ([ 1908] 1 K. B. 302.), In re South American Co. ([ 1895] 1 Ch. 95.), and Nuvion v. Freeman . (( 1889) 15 App. Cas. 1.)]
De Gruyther, K.C., and Kenworthy Brown, for the respondent, were not called upon.
The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD BUCKMASTER L.C. This case raises only a short question, but admittedly it is one of wide and general importance. It is for that reason that the Board departed from their usual course, and permitted Sir Robert Finlay to resume his argument after it had been concluded and his junior had addressed the Board. After having given full consideration to the arguments urged both by him and by his junior, the Board find themselves unable to accede to his contention.
The history of the case is this The appellant was originally plaintiff in a suit brought by him in this country against the respondent. In that suit he claimed a sum of 425?.
