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

1950 Supreme(Cal) 14

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. Mookerjee, Lahiri
SM. SUSHAMA ROY CHOUDHURANI - Appellant
Versus
A. S. M. OSMAN - Respondent
Civil Rule 1030  Of  1949
Decided On : JANUARY 25, 1950

Advocates Appeared:
CHANDRA SEKHAR SEN, RADHA KANTA BHATTACHARYA

The main legal point established is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply only to Courts in India and are not applicable outside India. The Court emphasized the lack of jurisdiction to direct a foreign Court, situated at Dacca, to take necessary steps for the execution of a decree.

Headnote:

Attachment - Jurisdiction - Section 60, Civil P. C., Section 136, Order 21, Rule 48 - The court discussed the provisions contained in Section 60, Civil P. C., read with Section 136 and Order 21, Rule 48 of the Code, which prima facie apply only to Courts in India. The Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted or applicable outside India. The Court held that it is not competent for a Court in India to direct a foreign Court, situated at Dacca, to take necessary steps for the execution of a decree.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought attachment of the salary of the opposite party, now residing in East Pakistan, to realize the balance of her decretal dues. The Munsif dismissed the execution case on the ground that the attachment process was not capable of execution as the judgment-debtor was living in another Dominion.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that it had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of attachment to Pakistan due to the separate sovereign and foreign status of India and Pakistan.

Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of attachment to a person residing in East Pakistan.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply only to Courts in India and are not applicable outside India. It further emphasized that it is not competent for a Court in India to direct a foreign Court, situated at Dacca, to take necessary steps for the execution of a decree.

Final Decision: The Rule for revision was discharged, and there was no order for costs in this Court.

R. P. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for revision of an order passed by the Munsif refusing to issue an order for attachment in respect of moneys payable by a person now resident in East Pakistan.

( 2 ) THE present petitioner obtained a decree from the Court at Alipore against the opposite party who was at that time a resident within the jurisdiction of that Court and was serving as an Inspector under the Calcutta Police. The opposite party having opted for Pakistan as from after 15th August 1947, he is now stated to be acting as an Inspector of Police at Dacca. The decree of the Alipore Court was put into execution in that Court. The decree-holder prayed for the realisation of the balance of her decretal dues by attachment of the salary of the opposite party payable at Dacca. The petitioner accordingly prayed for the issue of a writ of attachment of the salary of the opposite party under the provisions contained in Rule 28 of Order 21, Civil P. C. The writ of attachment was returned unexecuted from the Court in East Pakistan with the endorsement that the writ should be sent through the proper diplomatic channel. The Deputy High Commissioner for India in East Pakistan was approached and he intimated to the Munsif at Alipore that the Government of India had not laid down any procedure for levying attachment through the Deputy High Commissioner. The decree-holder petitioner then applied to the Alipore Court for requesting the Central Government for the realisation of the balance of the decretal dues. By an order, dated 4th April 1949, the learned Munsif dismissed the execution case on the ground that the attachment process was not cap-able of execution in view of the fact that the judgment-debtor was living in another Dominion. It is against this order that the present rule has been obtained.

( 3 ) IT is now incontestable that the Dominions of India and Pakistan are now two separate sovereign and foreign states. A Court in India has no authority on any Court or Officer resident in the other Dominion. An order may be passed by a Court only if such an order can be enforced though the person or party refuses to carry out that order.

( 4 ) FURTHER, the provisions contained in Section 60, Civil P. C. , read with Section 136 and Order 21, Rule 48 of the Code prima facie apply only to Courts in India. This Code is not attracted or is applicable outside India. It is permissible for the Court, as is made clear in the sections themselves, to issue a writ of attachment outside the jurisdiction of that particular Court, but that Court must be situated within India where the Code of Civil Procedure is in force. Reference may in this connection be made to the decision in Mela Mal v. Bishen Das, 13 Lah. 206 : (A. I. R. (18) 1981 Lah. 723), where cognate provisions as in Rule 5 of Order. 38, Civil P. C. , relating to attachment before judgment by civil Courts came up for consideration. Even a Court which was situated at Khasgar which was admittedly a foreign territory, but where a Court had been established under Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, by His Majesty in Council was not even considered to be within the category of Courts established by the Governor-General in Council. A Court situated in British India at that date was held to be incompetent to attach property situated in Khasgar. The rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure are obviously restricted to Courts in India.

( 5 ) REFERENCE may also be made to the recent decision of this Court in Dominion of India v. Hiralal Bothra, 53 C. W. N. 817 : (A. I. R. (37) 1950 cal. 12), where the relation between the two States, and the position and jurisdiction of the Courts situated in the two Dominions fell to be considered. The Court at Dacca comes within the definition of a foreign Court, as defined in Section 2 (5), Civil P. C. The order for attachment is to be sent to the relevant District Court under Section 136, Civil P. C. The District Court as referred to in Section


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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