RAVI KUMAR Vs. UMESH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decreeholder has filed an application under Order XXI Rules, 11, 11-A, 13 and 41 read with Section 15of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decreeholder has obtained a Judgment and Decree from the Supreme Court of Hong Kong which is a superior court of a 'reciprocating territory" under Section 44-A of the code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The loan given by the decreeholder to the judgment-debtor is no longer in dispute. Now, the only obvious question which the decreeholder is called upon to reply is why is this execution petition filed in this court. Admittedly, the judgment-debtor owns no property in Hong Kong and on his admissions has no wherewithal in Hong Kong to satisfy the said decree. Therefore, recovery cannot be made through the courts in Hong Kong. According to the knowledge and information of the decreeholder, the only property in which the Judgment-debtor has share is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this court, hence me execution of the said decree can legitimately be filed in this court alone. The decreeholder has reproduced the affirmation of the judgment-debtor in his petition and the same is reproduced as under:

(3.) The judgment-debtor has immovable property as well as shares in various businesses within the jurisdiction of this court. The Judgment debtor on 24.2.81 and 25.3.82 represented to the decree-holder that he is a member of HUF and that HUF has immovable property 7-A and 7-B, Rajpur Road. Since the property in which the judgment debtor has a share is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this court, therefore, the decreeholder has moved this court in India. The decreeholder further submitted that the fact the judgment debtor has a share in the said property is borne out by municipal, revenue and house tax records in which he is shown as joint owner of the above property.