JUDGMENT :

Yashwant Varma, J.

EX. APPL. (OS) 3784/2022 & EX. APPL. (OS) 3785/2022

1. The instant petition has been preferred before the Court for executing the final judgment dated 01 April 2022 and ancillary order dated 20 May 2022 pronounced by the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Commercial Court (QBD)[Foreign Court] passed in CL-2019-000527. For reasons which follow, the Court proposes to notice Prakash Industries Limited, the first respondent, as the “judgment debtor”. The second respondent, Prakash Pipes Limited shall be referred to as the “respondent”.

2. Taking cognizance of the present petition and in light of the undisputed fact that the judgment had been rendered by a competent court of a recognized reciprocating territory as contemplated under Section 44A of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908[Code], the Court on 20 October 2022 called upon the judgment debtor/respondent to file their replies as well as an Affidavit of Assets in terms of Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code. Pursuant to the aforesaid order and taking note of the nature of affidavits that had come to be filed, the Court on 09 December 2022 directed the judgment debtor to update the Affidavit of Assets disclosing the value of all accounts, Fixed Deposit Receipts as well as movable securities including their gross values as on 01 December 2022.

3. The Court had on that date also noticed the judgment debtor having preferred EX. APPL. (OS) 3785/2022, an application which questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the present execution petition. The execution petitioner was consequently granted time to file a reply to the aforesaid application. An application for modification of the order of 09 December 2022 as well as a prayer for placing the disclosures in respect of assets in sealed cover was disposed of by the Court by its order of 19 December 2022.

4. The respondent who also questioned the execution petitioner describing it to be a judgment debtor had independently filed EX. APPL. (OS) 3784/2022 asserting that since the judgment of which execution was sought had not framed or granted any relief against it, it was liable to be deleted from the array of parties. Learned counsels for respective sides were thereafter heard on the aforenoted two applications on different dates.

5. The principal objection which was taken by the judgment debtor was noticed by the Court in its order of 07 February 2023 which reads as under:—

“1. Mr. Nigam, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present execution petition and contends that undisputedly the present proceedings have been instituted referable to Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [the Code]. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 37 of the Code and the concept of court as introduced in terms thereof and which would govern the meaning to be assigned to the said expression as appearing in Section 44A.

2. The facts would evidence that the contract between the parties had indicated London to be the jurisdictional seat for the purposes of all claims that may arise or be chosen to be laid. The suit on which the decree ultimately came to be rendered and of which execution is sought in these proceedings was thus instituted in London.

3. It i