Point of Law: “Judgment” as per Section 2(9) of CPC means statement given by Judge on grounds of a decree or order.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2017, passed on I.A.No.4 in Ex.No.1860/2011, on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the said application.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is that the decree holders claim that on 18.03.2002 they were traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-04-A-1937 driven by a driver by name one Sri Ravi. The said car was heading from Mysuru to Gundlupet. A KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F-7028 was moving from Gundlupet to Nanjangud. When both the vehicles were moving in the opposite direction, the accident was taken place. It is alleged that the said car was engaged for transportation by M/s. Somak Travels Limited. Hence, they have preferred the claim in respect of alleged accident before the Exeter Country Court, United Kingdom. The foreign Court allowed the claim petition and directed to pay the compensation. The decree holders on account of non-payment of compensation, filed the execution petition in Ex.No.1860/2011. The judgment debtor i.e., the revision petitioner herein, filed an application under Section 47 of CPC praying the Court to hold the decree (under execution) is not executable in law.

3. In support of the said application, an affidavit is sworn to that the driver of the car had hit the bus which was coming from the opposite direction of the road which was traveling towards Mysuru. The decree holders admit that the driver of the car Sri Ravi was negligent in driving the car and the said car was engaged for transportation by Mr. Somak Travels Limited. The driver of the bus was not negligent in driving the bus and the accident was on account of negligence on the part of the said Ravi. It is contended that the decree holders have to make the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal constituted i.e., before the Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim made before the foreign Court has no jurisdiction to grant compensation and when the accident was occurred in India, it is bound by the Motor Vehicles Act. It is contended that the Exeter Country Court, United Kingdom was not a competent Court to take cognizance of a claim arising out of an accident which has taken place within the territory of India and the said Court has not passed a decree by appreciating the merits of the case. Hence, the decree passed by the foreign Court is not sustainable in India. The foreign Court cannot assume jurisdiction in the manner in which it is sought to be done. It is contended that to deprive the fair opportunity to KSRTC and to obtain a usurious decree against the principles of natural justice, the decree holders have filed a claim petition before the foreign country by alleging that the travel arrangements were made by M/s. Somak Travels. Merely because KSRTC bus was involved in the accident, the same does not bind KSRTC with the contract stated to be entered with M/s. Somak Travels by the decree holders.

4. The said application was resisted by the decree holders by filing the objection statement contending that the very application is not maintainable. The decree holder in his statement of truth dated 14.04.2003 and on the spot inspection report dated 18.03.2002 states that the bus of the judgment debtor caused the accident. It is contended that they have filed the case in Ashford Country Court and obtained the judgment and decree in their favour. It is further contended that the said Court which passed the judgment and decree has got the jurisdiction to pass the judgment and the same is conclusive and binding insofar as the judgment and decree is concerned. It is contended that according to Section 20 of the CPC, when there are more than one defendant to a suit, suit can be filed at the place of business of any of the defendants. Since the judgment debtor was a necessary party in the proceedings before the United Kingdom Court, the jurisdiction assumed by the Court was in accordance with In