Govinda Menon, J. - The short facts which have given rise to the above appeal are as follow: The first defendant in C.R. No. 172 of 1932 on the file of the High Court, Rangoon, was a firm of which defendants 2 and 3 were partners and the suit against them was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,000 and odd. On 25th May, 1933, after the refusal of the request by the defendants’ advocate for an adjournment of the suit, an ex parte decree was passed as prayed for. By E. A. No. 613 of 1933 on the file of the Rangoon High Court the decree was transmitted for execution to the Sub-Court, Devakottai, where it was alleged that the properties of the judgment-debtors were situate. Between 1933 and 1941 three infractuous applications were taken out by the decree-holder but the same were dismissed for various reasons. Thereafter on 6th September, 1944, more than three years of the dismissal of the previous application and the final orders being passed on that, E.P. No. 173 of 1944 was filed for executing the decree by attachment and sale of the properties belonging to the judgment-debtors as a result of which attachment was ordered on 26th March,. 1945, effected on 6th April, 1945 and the sale of properties ordered on 19th December, 1945. On 18th December, 1945, the judgment-debtors preferred C.M.A. No. 522 of 1945 against the order of the Subordinate Judge and applied for stay of sale which was granted. On 7th March, 1946, C.M.A. No. 522 of 1945 was withdrawn and dismissed. Subsequently the judgment-debtors filed on 27th August, 1946, E.A. No. 377 of 1946, to strike off E.P. No. 173 of 1944 on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree any further. This was dismissed on 6th December, 1946. Against that, C.M.A. No. 29 of 1947 was filed in this Court and further proceedings were stayed. On 28th March, 1947, E.P. No. 173 of 1944 was struck off with the order that the attachment should continue. C.M.A. No. 29 of 1947 was ultimately dismissed on 12th December, 1949.

E.P. No. 134 of 1950 dated 14th April, 1950, in the lower Court was a petition to execute the decree in C.R. No. 172 of 1933 by treating that petition as a continuation of E.P. No. 173 of 1944 and to order sale of items of immovable properties over which at the time of striking off of E.P. No. 173 of 1944 attachment was held to continue. The second defendant who contested the application objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to execute it as section 44-A of the Civil Procedure Code read with the reciprocity agreements has ceased to govern the decree passed by the Rangoon High Court as India and Burma which were once component parts of the erstwhile British Empire have now become sovereign independent Republics and also that execution petition was barred by limitation by reason of the provisions of section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was further alleged that E.P. No. 134 of 1950 cannot be treated as a continuation of E.P. No. 173 of 1944 which was finally disposed of on 28th March, 1947 and there was nothing pending in the Court which could be resuscitated or revived. The learned Subordinate Judge formulated three points for consideration and after considering them held that E.P. No. 134 of 1950 was not barred by limitation and therefore execution was ordered to be proceeded with. Aggrieved by that order, the second defendant has preferred the present C.M.A. No. 85 of 1951 pending which he died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 are respectively defendants 3 and 4 and the contesting first respondent is the plaintiff decree-holder.

Various questions of law were raised before us. Mr. B.V. Viswanatha Iyer in an interesting argument placed before us a number of authorities bearing on the points under consideration and we are of the opinion that on one of the points raised by him the appeal has to be allowed. Non-applicability of section 44-A of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document