JUDGMENT :- The facts relevant to this appeal are that on the basis of agreement dated 8-12-1953 between the appellant Pannalal Umediram and the respondent Narahari Narvekar a suit was instituted by the former against the latter in Bombay in 1955 for the recovery of certain sum of money. It appears that the defendant originally put in appearance and filed the written statement but subsequently absented himself. The suit was ultimately decreed on 21-6-1960, the decree made being ex parte.

The decree holder secured transfer certificate from the Bombay High Court to the Comarca Court in Panaji in September 1963 and then sued out execution of the decree in the manner outlined in the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, hereinafter referred to as the Portuguese Code. The judgment debtor filed an objection petition contending that in terms of S. 813, No. 3, of the Portuguese Code the decree was un-executable until confirmed by the Judicial Commissioner's Court at Panaji. The decree holder controverted the validity of the objection but the same prevailed with the trial court which held that unless the decree was confirmed by the Judicial Commissioner's Court it was not executable as ordained by Ss. 50 and 1100 of the Portuguese Code. Having felt aggrieved, the decree holder has come up in appeal to this Court.

2. Section 50 of the Portuguese Code provides that the judgments given by courts and Arbitrators in a foreign country can be executed after they are examined and confirmed by Tribunal da Relacao, to which the Judicial Commissioner's Court of Goa, Daman and Diu is now the successor. The trial court was of the opinion that the High Court at Bombay, which had passed the decree, was a Court in foreign country vis-a-vis the territory of Goa at the time that decree was made and as such the provisions of S. 50 apply in full force. Shri Mulgaonkar, representing the decree holder, has levelled a two-pronged attack on the findings of the trial court. Firstly, he contends that the Bombay High Court cannot be branded as a foreign Court, and in the second place he urges that the matter is put beyond the pale of controversy by Cl. (3) of Article 261 of the Constitution of India.

3. Shri Kamat has stressed, on behalf of the judgment-debtor, that clause (3) of Art. 261 is not attracted because Goa was not a part of the Indian territory on the date the decree was passed by the Bombay High Court. He maintains that the decree is one given by a foreign Court within the meaning of S. 50 of the Portuguese Code.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, I have reached the conclusion that the appeal can be disposed of on the basis of the constitutional provision relied upon by Shri Mulgaonkar. Clause (3) of Art. 261 of the Constitution runs as under :

"Final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the territory of India shall be capable of execution anywhere within that territory according to law."

A plain reading of the clause would reveal that final judgments and orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the territory of India can be executed anywhere else in the same territory though the provisions which shall govern the execution proceedings shall be according to the law prevalent. It is not contested that the decree sought to be executed represents a final judgment of the Bombay High Court. It is also not contested that the Bombay High Court is a Civil Court in the territory of India. It is also not disputed that at present the territory of Goa forms part of India. Hence there looks to be no impediment in executing the decree against the judgment-debtor in the Court situate in the territory of Goa.

Shri Kamat has, however, contended that before clause (3) of Art. 261 can be invoked, it must be established that the territory in which the decree is sought to be executed was also a part of the territory of India at the time the decree was made. I am afraid that the clause is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document