Foreign Judgment--Execution of--In a case which is decided under summary procedure after considering the evidence available on record led by the parties, it would be a decision on merits to be covered under Section 13(b) of the CPC.
Foreign Judgment--Execution of Costs imposed by a foreign Court is a decree which can be executed in the Court in India under Section 44-A of the CPC.
Execution of Simultaneous Applications--There is no bar in seeking simultaneous execution in two courts specially when the decree holder has stated that nothing has been recovered from the execution filed in the other Court.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the District Judge, Sangrur upholding the maintainability of the execution application filed by the respondent who has sought to execute foreign judgments (judgments of the Courts at United Kingdom) at Sangrur in India.

2. In order to trace the genesis of controversy between the parties to the dispute [hereinafter referred to as "the parties"] a few skeletal facts are necessary, namely, what was the basic dispute between the parties and what were the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts at United Kingdom.

3. Litigation between the parties at United Kingdom - The petitioner (Karnail Singh Sandhar) filed a Claim No.7BM30125 against

i) Sandhar & Kang Limited;

ii) Swarn Singh Kang;

iii) Udham Singh Kang; and

iv) Avtar Singh Kang in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Birmingham District Registry, United Kingdom [hereinafter referred to as the "High Court of Justice"] on 23.03.2007, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner was formerly a resident of United Kingdom [for short "UK"] as a citizen Since about 1987, he and his wife are living in Canada as citizens. In or about 1964, the petitioner and defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4, namely, Swam Singh Kang, Udham Singh Kang and Avtar Singh Kang, established a business partnership for trading in food retail under the name and style of "Sandhar & Kang". In or about 1975, they purchased the property with the title No.WM65125, situated at and known as 228 and 260 Cheapside, 54 Bradford Street and land and buildings at the North East Side of Cheapside, North West side of Birchall Street, and South West side of Bradford Street [hereinafter referred to as the "Property"] together having quarter share each. It was registered in the legal estate of the petitioner and defendant Nos.2 to 4. In or about 1976, the partnership business was dissolved and was taken over by a new company called "Sandhar & Kang Limited" (defendant No.l) in which the petitioner and defendant Nos.2 to 4 were the shareholders. In or about 1978, a further property at 24 Chester Road, New Oscott [hereinafter referred to as the "Chester Road Property"] was purchased by the petitioner and defendant Nos.2 to 4 in equal quarter share. The said property was also registered in the legal estate of the petitioner and defendant Nos.2 to 4. It was alleged that the Property and the Chester Road Property were not transferred to the company (defendant No.l) and remained registered in the legal estate of petitioner and defendant Nos.2 to 4 to continue to hold the same as trustees for themselves in equal shares. In or about 1986, the petitioner and defendant Nos.2 to 4 fell out, the petitioner resigned as a Director and shareholder of the company and was paid £350,000 for his shareholding in the company. However, the petitioner remained registered as a holder of the legal estate in the Property and the Chester Road Property with defendant Nos.2 to 4 in equal shares. After his resignation, the petitioner left UK and settled at Canada and obtained Canadian citizenship. In December 1988, without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, defendant Nos.2 to 4 sold the Chester Road Property by simulating signatures of the petitioner on the transfer deed and retained the consideration amount which, according to the petitioner, was of £200000 and the amount has not been accounted for. In October 1992, defendant Nos.2 to 4, without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, transferred the Property to the company by simulating his signatures on the transfer deed. Following that, the Property was registered in the sole legal title of the company. In the year 2000, the petitioner returned to the UK and discovered the aforesaid transfers. On his objection, defendant Nos.2 to 4 through their solicitors produced a copy o