DAULAT SINGH Vs. RATAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the judgment-debtor arises out of an execution case.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be briefly set out to appreciate the point involved, which is one of limitation (sic ). The decree-holder respondent obtained a decree for money against the appellant judgment-debtor from the Court of the Additional subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer on 2-11-44. The decree was transferred originally for execution to a Court at Nimbera. Nimbera was then a part of rajasthan which excluded the territory of Ajmer. Ultimately, when the Court at nimbera was abolished and the territorial jurisdiction of that Court was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Chittor, proceedings for execution were taken out by the decree-holder in the Chittor Court. The appellant objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that it had been passed by a Court within the former state of Ajmer which was then a foreign court and could not be executed in the court at Chittor as the judgment-debtor had not submitted to its jurisdiction. During the course of the execution proceedings the Ajmer State was also integrated with the State of Rajasthan. It cannot be disputed that alter the integration of Ajmer in Rajasthan decrees of the courts of the erstwhile Ajmer state would be deemed to be the decrees of the Rajasthan State and, as such, would be executable in any part of Rajasthan. But the point which was raised in this case is: whether the decree which was transferred before the integration of ajmer with Rajasthan and in respect of which the application for execution was pending should be allowed to be executed since the decree when it was passed was a decree of foreign court and had not been validly transferred to the court of nimbera or the court at Chittor, the judgment-debtor having never submitted to the jurisdiction of the Ajmer Court.

(3.) MR. Joshi's contention for the appellant is that the application for execution which was presented in a court in Rajasthan prior to the integration of Ajmer with rajasthan was not a proper application for execution and the proceedings for execution based thereon were, therefore, not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Manakchand v. Shambhoo Singh, ILR (1958) 8 Raj 591. The learned Advocate for the respondent, Mr. Murli Manohar, contends that according to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Laxmichand v. Mst. Tipuri, ILR (1950 ). 6 Raj 236 : ( (S) AIR. 1956 Raj. 81) (FB), the decree should be taken to have been validly transferred by the then Ajmer Court to a court in rajasthan; and since during the pendency of the application for execution Ajmer became a part of Rajasthan, the decree became executable unconditionally in any part of the State and it was no longer open to the judgment-debtor to raise the plea that the decree was in executable on account of its having been passed by a foreign court to whose jurisdiction he had not submitted. As there was some conflict between the decision of the Division Bench relied upon by Mr. Joshi and the Full Bench decision of this Court, Chhangani J. referred the matter to a larger bench and, eventually, the case was set down for hearing before a Full Bench.