LAXMIDAS DAMODARDAS Vs. L CHANDRABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application raises an interesting question as to whether an exparte decree passed by a Court in British India could be executed by the Courts in the territory in the Indian States which at the time of execution have merged in the territories of India. This application was originally filed as a second appeal as the appeal against the trial Courts order rejecting the contention of the judgment-debtor that such a decree was a nullity Courts decree was summarily dismissed by the first appellate Court.

(2.) The short facts which have given rise to this application are as under :-

(3.) Mr. Hathi contends that the aforesaid Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court must be considered as impliedly overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court and therefore this revision application ought to be allowed. The two Bombay decisions arose in connection with similar exparte decrees of British Indian Courts. In the decision in Chunilal Kasturchand v. Dundappa Damappa A.I.R. 1951 Bom. 190 the Division Bench was concerned with the question of excitability of an exparte decree of the Court of Belgaum in the territory of Jamkhandi State after the said Indian State had merged in the Bombay Province. In the Full Bench decision in Bhagwan v. Rajaram A.I.R. 1951 Bom. 125 however the exparte decree was of the Court at Sholapur in British India and was sought to be executed against a non-resident foreigner who was in the foreign territory at Akalkot which was also a Native State area which merged with the Indian Union. In both these decisions the Bombay High Court had interpreted the rule of international law laid down in Sardar Gurudayal Singh v. Rajah of Fardkote 21 I.A. 171 at page 185 where Earl of Selborne speaking for the Judicial Committee laid down the following rule: