( 1 ) 1. By this application the decree-holder seeks execution of a decree that has been filed in this Court under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure," 1908 (in short "the CPC"),

( 2 ) THE decree was passed on April 10th, 2001 by the learned Subordinate, Judge, 1st court at Dhaka in Money Suit No. 30 of 1994. The suit was filed by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtors. The decree was for USS 55,669. 20 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realization. Judgment-debtor 1, preferred an appeal against the decree. Judgment-debtor 2, however, did not prefer any appeal. In the appeal (F. A. No. 365 of 2001) order was passed to stay the operation of the decree. For execution of the decree the decree-holder did not apply to the Court which passed the decree. On the contrary, it filed the certified copy of the decree under Section 44-A of the CPC in this Court and applied for its execution under Order 21, Rule 11 (2) of the CPC on April 24th, 2002. By an order dated August 11th, 2003 the High Court Division at Dhaka of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh modified the stay order passed in the appeal preferred by judgment-debtor 1; the stay was vacated as against judgment-debtor 2. So now the decree-holder wants to execute the decree as against judgment-debtor 2.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for judgment-debtor 2 raises three preliminary objections. He submits that the execution proceeding is not maintainable, because :- (1) the certificate required under Section 44-A (2) of the CPC has not been filed with the certified copy of the decree; (2) in terms of the notifications regarding superior Courts of reciprocating territory, the decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dhaka cannot be executed through this Court; (3) without obtaining prior leave under Order 21, Rule 22 (1) of the CPC a decree cannot be filed under Section 44-A of the CPC.

( 4 ) HIS contention is that the decree, if it were executable, should have been put into execution through the Court which passed it, and on its remaining unsatisfied to any extent, only for such unsatisfied part it could have been filed under Section 44-A of the cpc, and that too after obtaining prior leave under Order 21, Rule 22 (1) of the CPC; and in such case it could have been filed only in a Court having same status and jurisdiction as that of the Court which passed it. So the certificate to be produced under Section 44-A (2) of the CPC should be a certificate issued by the Court which passed the decree, recording that the decree remained unsatisfied to the extent mentioned therein for want of property of the judgment-debtor against which it could have been executed. A mere information slip containing the information that the decree was not put into execution in the Court which passed it is no certificate at all. To show what should be the nature and form of the certificate he relies on the decision in Lakhpat Rai Sharma v. Atma Singh, AIR 1962 Punj 228. Regarding the requirement of prior leave under order 21, Rule 22 (1) of the CPC he relies on the decisions in Indian and General Investment Trust Ltd. v. Sri Ramchandra mardaraja Deo, Raja of Khalikote, AIR 1952 cal 508 and Algemene Bank, Nederland NV v. Satish Dayalal Choksi, AIR 1990 Bom 170.

( 5 ) REGARDING the nature and form of the certificate learned counsel for the decree-holder submits that the information slip filed together with the certified copy of the decree is sufficient. For this he relies on the decision in M/s. International Woollen Mills v. M/s. Standard Wool (U. K. Ltd.), AIR 2000 pandh 182. He submits that in terms of the relevant notifications regarding reciprocating territory both this Court and the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dhaka fall within the category of specified superior courts, and hence the decree can be filed in this Court for its execution through this court. He disputes the correctness of the contention that without obtaining prior leave under Order 21, Rule 22 (1} of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document