GOPALDAS Vs. DAGDURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs, Gopaldas, S/o Punjia, Purshotam S/o Jethabhai and Khatau S/o Khemji are traders conducting their business at Bombay, under the name of the firm 'Khemji Ponja & Co., Bombay. The defendants, Dagduram alias Dagdulal S/o Shriram, Laxminarayan S/o Dagduram, Jagan Nath S/o Bagduram are also traders conducting their business at Kadirabad, Jalna, under the firm name of 'Laxminarayan Jagannath. In connection With the business between these two firms the defendants owed some amount to the plaintiffs for which there was a dispute. The dispute was entrusted to the arbitration and an award was given by the arbitrators. This award was filed in the Bombay High Court on 25th April 1938, and proceedings were taken in execution of this award as a decree and the plaintiffs realised Rs. 329 -2 -7 in the execution, but &s the plaintiffs did not realise the whole sum under the award, the present suit was instituted on 1st Amardad, 1348, P., in the Munsiff Court at Jalna for Rs. 1,660/ - The defendants in their written statements stated that the award given by the East India Cotton Association, Bombay, was an ex parte one and also it was collusive and partial and the association had no jurisdiction to pass any decree and the decree was invalid. The decree that has been filed cannot be a basis of a suit and cannot bind the defendants, as the defendants were the subjects of the Hyderabad State.

(2.) THE original Court decreed the suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit against defendant No. 3, against which defendants Nos. 1 and 3 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal holding that the decree upon which the suit has been based is not a foreign judgment under Section 8 of the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code, therefore, he rejected the plaintiffs' plaint; against which the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.

(3.) THE appellants filed a review petition and on 19 -3 -56 F the review application was allowed and the judgment dated the 2nd Azur, 1355 F., was set aside. In this judgment, allowing the review petition, it is observed by the learned Judges that they were satisfied that the record contains the judgment and decree of the foreign Court upon which the suit is based and as there was an obvious error, the review petition was allowed and the appeal was posted for hearing.