SETABGANJ SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. BENOZIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit involves the decision of only one point. The point is whether, when a person has obtained a judgment in a foreign Court against another person, a fresh suit by him against the same person on the same cause of action in our country is maintainable? It is contended that such a suit would not be maintainable for two reasons. First, it is said, that the foreign judgment would bar the second suit on general principles. Secondly it is said that the foreign judgment would operate as such a bar by reason of Section 13, Civil P. C.

(2.) The facts are simple and not in dispute. The plaintiff sold sugar to the two defendants of the value of Rs. 2,73,980-4-6. Obviously the deal was a purely commercial transaction. Of this sum the plaintiff was paid Rs. 2,40,000/-. The plaintiff filed the present suit in this Court on 8-9-1948 to recover the balance of the price amounting to Rs. 33,980-4-6 which the defendants had failed to pay. In this suit the plaintiff obtained an attachment before judgment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- lying to the credit of the defendant Benozir Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) with the Government of West Bengal. On 27-9-1948 the plaintiff filed another suit against the defendants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge claiming the same sum of money on the same cause of action. It does not appear why this was done but presumably because the plaintiff wanted an attachment before judgment of the defendant's properties in East Pakistan also as he had not sufficient property in India. However that may be, it so happened that the Dacca suit came up for hearing on 15-11-1949 before this suit was ready to be heard. On that date the plaintiff asked for an adjournment which apparently was opposed by the defendant and the Dacca Court refused the request for adjournment. It appears that the defendant admitted the plaintiff's claim but prayed that he might be allowed to pay the amount in twenty annual instalments. The Court went into the question of instalments and passed a decree on admission for the amount claimed with costs and directed that the decretal amount be paid in fifteen equal annual instalments. It further directed that the attachment already levied in the suit would subsist. It does not appear what happened so far as the other defendant was concerned. The defendant duly deposited in Dacca Court the first two instalments of Rs. 2385-8-0 each payable under the decree on 12-4-1950 and 28-3-1951. The plaintiff never withdrew any of these two sums. In fact the plaintiff appealed from the decree but it is in dispute as to what, if anything, has happened to this appeal. The direction in the decree that the attachment was to continue tends to show that in the Dacca suit also the plaintiff had obtained an attachment before judgment.

(3.) This suit, that is the Calcutta suit, has now come up for hearing before me. The plaintiff has made up his difference with the other defendant and does not want to proceed against him. I am only concerned with the defendant Benozir Ahmed whom I have so long been referring to as the defendant. The defendant had filed a written statement raising various defences. At the hearing before me all these defences, excepting one, were abandoned. The defendant's only contention at the hearing was that this suit is incompetent because of the decree in the Dacca suit.