1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule.

3. Rule made returnable forthwith.

4. By consent, the matter is taken on board for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

5. By this Civil Revision Application, the Defendant – Judgment Debtor challenges the order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Nashik below Exhibit 1 in Special (Civil) Darkhast no.1 of 2007, rejecting the Petitioner’s Application for declaration that the recovery proceeding filed by the Respondents – original Plaintiffs be disposed off/dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or even otherwise on facts and 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 is executable before District Court at Nashik.

6. A few facts of the matter are as under:

The Respondents – original Plaintiffs filed a Suit against the Petitioner – original Defendant in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in the 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. have no jurisdiction to entertain the Claim no.HC 06C00720. The said Application was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom by an order dated 19th October, 2006 and imposed a costs in the sum of £12,429.75 equivalent to Rs.10,16,753.55 paise with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Thereafter, the Respondents – original Plaintiffs filed Special (Civil) Darkhast no.1 of 2007 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 Exhibit 1 on 1st March, 2008 for declaration that the Execution Application filed by the Respondents is not maintainable as the same is in respect of the costs imposed by the foreign Court at the time of dismissing the Petitioner’s Interim Application, whereas, the main matter is still pending for hearing and final disposal on its own merits. The said Application is rejected by the District Judge-2, Nashik by impugned order dated 15th April, 2011 and hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the District Judge-2, Nashik dated 15th April, 2011 is against justice, equity and good conscience and the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that the District Court, Nashik failed to appreciate that the Execution Application filed by the Respondents for recovery of costs imposed by foreign Court on Interim Application, whereas, the main matter is pending for hearing and final disposal on its own merits, therefore, the Execution Petition is not maintainable for recovery of costs imposed by the foreign Court at the time of deciding Interim Application. He submits that the District Judge-2, Nashik ought to have seen that under Indian Law interim order for payment of costs are not executable unless it has been made into a form of a decree, which is passed at the time of final hearing of the suit and as such the execution of an order passed by the Court in England which was interim order awarding cost, could not have been held to be maintainable. He further states that the learned Executing Court failed to notice that only such part of an order or decree is executable in India which part is in consonance with the law on the subject in India as well. If there is any order passed by the foreign Court in respe