Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court recently remarked that a litigant to Court is not interested in receiving a paper decree when he succeeds in establishing his case and that he primarily wants the relief.

With this view, the top court has directed the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to take up an old matter on priority where the foreign decree passed in February, 2006, has not been executed for almost 16 years.

Referring to an old saying that the difficulties of the litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree, the Court said,

“The evil was noticed as far back in 1872 by the Privy Council in relation to the difficulties faced by the decree holder in execution of the decree. After more than a century, there has been no improvement and still the decree holder faces the same problem what was being faced in the past.”

A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka further remarked that what a litigant primarily wants from the court of justice is the relief and if it is a money decree, he wants the money that he is entitled for in terms of the decree, he must be satisfied by the judgment debtor at the earliest possible keeping in view the reasonable restrictions/rights which are available to the judgment  debtor under the provisions of the statute or the code, as the case may be.

Messer Griesheim GmbH (now called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH), the decree holder, approached the top court by way of an appeal challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the Court relegated it to file a petition for execution of a money decree dated February 7, 2006(in excess of Rs. 20 lakhs) of a foreign court indisputedly notified as a superior court of a reciprocating territory before the District Court in view of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

“Instant case is the live illustration before us where the decree holder was able to get a money decree of a foreign court which is notified as a superior court of a reciprocating territory way back on 7th February, 2006 and after 16 years have been rolled by, still the screen is smoky and not clear as to which is the forum where he could approach for execution of a decree”, remarked the Bench.

The question that emerged for the bench’s consideration was whether the Delhi High Court in   exercise of its original jurisdiction is a competent Court to entertain a petition for executing a money decree (in excess of Rs.20 lakhs) of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code.

A perusal of the provisions under the Code revealed that the expression ‘District” is defined under Section 2(4) and “District Court” referred under Section 44A of the Code although not defined, but on conjoint reading of the provision makes it clear that it refers to the local limits of the jurisdiction   of   a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction and it includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court.

The Court further remarked that it was not in dispute that a principal civil court of original jurisdiction is normally a District Court and the High Courts in India exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction are not too many, but where there is a split jurisdiction based on its pecuniary value, notified from time to time, the District Court or the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction is competent to exercise power for execution of decree.

“To read the expression “District Court” in Section 44A for execution of foreign decree, it will be construed to be a Court holding ordinary original civil jurisdiction in terms of its pecuniary limits as being notified under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966….,” held the Bench.

Once the pecuniary jurisdiction at the given point of time exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs as notified by the High Court under Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (later vide notification dated 10th August, 2015 (w.e.f. 26th October, 2015) pecuniary limits has been revised to Rs.2 crores), the top court said that it was the High Court of Delhi which held its exclusive jurisdiction as ordinary original civil jurisdiction to execute a foreign decree under Section 44A and it went without saying that execution always is in continuation of the proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court went on to allow the appeal and direct the High Court to decide the case on its own merits as expeditiously as possible keeping in view its long awaiting execution in accordance with law, but in no case later than four months.

Cause Title: Messer Griesheim GmbH (now Air Liquide Deutschlanfd GmbH) vs Goyal MG Gases Pvt Ltd