MORLAYS BHAM LTD Vs. ROSHANLAL RAMSAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Parpia's contention is that the true meaning of the words "as if" as used in Sub-section (1) (of Section 44-A Civil P. C.) is that the decree in favour of the Plaintiffs must be treated as having been passed by this Court and consequently it must he held to have been passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. In my view that iccntention is contrary to and impossible having re- gard to the provisions in sub-section (3) which provides that this Court as executing Court shall rc-hise execution of the Plaintiffs' decree if it falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13. As I have already held the decree in question falls within exception (a) of section 13 and is a decree not of a Court of competent jurisdiction. The words "as if" are used in sub-section (1) to make the whole scheme of Order XXI applicable in respect of execution of decrees ot foreign Courts mentioned in sub-section (1 ). The words "as if" have no wider meaning as is suggested by Mr. Parpia. Mr. Joshi relied upon, the decisions in the case of Vithalbhai Shivabhrd Patel v. Lalbhai Bhhnhliai, 44 Bom LR 380: (AIR 1942 Bom 199) and Indian and General Investment Trust Ltd. v, Raja of Khalikote, AIR 1952 Cal 508. Questions arose in those matters regarding recognition of foreign judg ments and the principles as recognized by the Privy Covincil in the case of Raja of Faridkote were repealed in these decisions. It is unnecessary to refer to the details of facts as contained in these decisions.

(2.) EXECUTION dismissed.