Maintainability of execution petition affected.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. :- This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of west Tanjore dismissing an application filed under S. 44-A C.P.C. by the appellant for execution of a judgment obtained by him in a foreign Court, the High Court of the (Colony of Singapore. On 2nd October 1953, the Court entered judgment in favour of the applicant against the respondent firm, which was doing business in Singapore for a sum of 1,60,408-84 dollars, inclusive of costs, by a supplemental judgment delivered on 25th May 1954, a quondam partner of the respondent firm one Mohammad Ismail, was also held liable for the entire amount. It appears that under the rules governing the practice of that court, no formal decree on the basis of the judgment is issued for regulating the rights of parties if execution were to be levied of a judgment entered up for payment of money a copy of the judgment alone is filed. Where the decree-holder obtains part-satisfaction there is no procedure for recording such part-satisfaction in Court. He merely applies to the Sherifff for execution for the balance of the amount due.

2. In the present case, various payments, in all amounting to 16000 dollars are acknowledged to have been made to the decree-holder, the last of them being by a cheque for 1000 dollars made out in favour of the appellant by Mohammad Ismail on 13th August 1955; that was realised two days later.

3. It appears there were other amounts due to tire appellant from the respondent The former applied on 4th October 1958 to the High Court at Singapore to have K.M. Abdul Kasim Rowther, the other partner of the firm, adjudged bankrupt. By an order, dated 31st October 1958, the High court of Singapore adjudged him as such, notwithstanding the fact that no notice had been serves to him.

4. K.M. Abdul Karim Rowther owns considerable properties in this country. The colony of Singapore has been recognised as a reciprocating territory for purposes of execution of decree passed by the Superior Courts in that Country in India. That was by notification S.R.O. No. 4 dated 1st September 1955 passed under SBC. 44-A C.P.C. whereby, the Supreme Court of the Colony of Singapore was declared to be a superior Court with reference, to that territory,

5. On 16th August, some time prior to the adjudication of K.M. Abdul Kasim Rowther as an insolvent by the High Court of Singapore, the appellant filed an application in the Court below for realisation by way of execution of a sum of Rs. 2,32,798-25 (which represented the amount due in Indian currency), by attachment and sale of the debtors properties in this country. The petition was not accompanied by any certificate from the High Court of Singapore stating the extent to which the judgment remained unsatisfied. The application was resisted by the debtor on various grounds. The learned District Judge field that by reason of the subsequent bankruptcy of the debtor, the appellant who became disentitled to execute the decree in Singapore, could not do so in this country. He further held that the application for execution was barred by Art. 182 of the Limitation Act. It would be sufficient in this appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge to consider only two objections to the maintainability of the execution petition, namely, (i) whether the non-submission of a certificate from the superior Court at Singapore showing the extent to Which the decree is still outstanding will be a bar to the maintainability of the execution petition; and (ii) whether the execution petition is barred by limitation.

6. On the first question the learned District Judge was of the view that the omission to file what he called a non-satisfaction memo, would not amount to a material irregularity and that notwithstanding the fact that the execution petition was unaccompanied by a certificate specified in S. 44-A(2), the application was maintainable in support of that view reliance has b"en placed on the decision of