Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Execution Application No. 87 and F. C. D. No. 1 of 1976, decided on 22nd May, 1983.
‑‑‑‑ S. 44‑A‑Foreign decree, execution of‑Judgment‑debtor neither resident of within jurisdiction of foreign Court nor residing there when action brought nor submitting to its jurisdiction‑‑‑Judgment of foreign Court, held, not executable in circumstance.
Ram Shah Khanna v. H. Dharamsey Execution Application No. 44 of 1971 ; Fazal Ahmed v. Abdul Bar P L D 1952 Dacca 155 ; Ghulam Muhammad v. Sarosh Ratanjiwadia P L D 1959 Kar. 624 and Swindella & Sons v. Haji Muhammad Abdullah P L D 1957 Kar. 933 fol.
S. A. Saeed for the Decree‑holder.
Zia Qureshi for the Judgment‑debtor.
Date of hearing : 22nd May, 1983.
By this Execution Application the applicants seek to execute foreign decree (a decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division in the case between Karamchand Leal and Nasib Kaur Leal together trading in partnership as Rhythmistan (Plaintiffs) and Mehdi Hassan (Defendant). On 30‑4‑1973, the said defendant was adjudged be pay to the plaintiffs 2,244 and costs assessed at 125.
2. Mr. Zia Qureshi the learned Advocate on behalf of the Judgment debtor has objected to the execution of the aforementioned foreign decree in Pakistan on the ground that the said decree is inexecutable and could not be enforced by filing this petition in this Court. The objection raised above is based on the plea that the defendant was neither resident of nor resided in England at the time when the action was brought. It was further contended that the defendant had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the said foreign Court.
3. The learned counsel relied upon the order passed in Ram Shah Khanna v. H. Dharamsey (Execution Application No. 44/1971) passed by the then High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi Bench on 9th March, 1972, wherein, the learned Judge after referring to the case reported as Fazal Ahmed v. Abdul Bari (P L D 1952 Dacca 155), Ghulam Muhammad v. Sarosh Ratanjiwadia (P L D 1959 Kar. 624) and Swindella & Sons v. Haji Huhammao Abdullah (P L D 1957 Kar. 933) involving consideration of law as in the present case, held as follows :‑
"These authorities are fully applicable to the present case and it has been clearly laid down that the Judgment of a foreign Court cannot be executed in this country in case the defendant was not resident of that place, or was not residing there when the action was brought or had not submitted to its jurisdiction. In those cases also the judgment debtor though served never appeared before those Courts. I need not dialate on this point as the legal position has been fully discussed in those authorities and I respectfully agree with the view taken therein."
I am in respectful agreement with the observations made as above in Execution Application No. 44 of 1971. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the decree‑holder.
4. This Execution Application for the execution of the foreign decree for reasons mentioned above is dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
M. Y. M. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer