Summary
The Supreme Court held that section 44A CPC supplies a procedure for executing decrees of reciprocating foreign territories, without creating a fresh limitation period. Ordinarily, limitation runs under the law of the country where the decree was passed. Where timely execution there remains partly or wholly unsatisfied, an Indian application must be filed within three years of finalisation of those proceedings. The London decree in this case had become unenforceable before execution was sought in India.
Issues
- Which limitation law and starting point govern execution in India of a reciprocating foreign court’s decree.
- Whether filing a certified decree under section 44A creates a fresh twelve-year execution period.
Provisions considered
- Section 44A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Provides the execution mechanism and accompanying certificate requirements, but creates no fresh period of limitation. (¶¶ 9, 38, 42)
- Articles 136 and 137, Limitation Act, 1963Article 136 concerns decrees of Indian civil courts; Article 137 governs the Indian application after finalisation of timely foreign execution proceedings. (¶¶ 22, 42, 43)
- Order XXI rule 11(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The execution application must contain the prescribed particulars in addition to the section 44A documents. (¶ 38)
Held
- Section 44A does not restart limitation upon filing a foreign decree in India. Article 136’s twelve-year period is confined to decrees of Indian civil courts. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42)
- Where the decree-holder takes no execution steps in the country of origin until limitation there expires, the decree cannot thereafter be revived through execution in India. The applicable period ordinarily runs from the foreign decree under that country’s limitation law. (¶¶ 42, 43)
- If execution proceedings are instituted within limitation in the country of origin and leave the decree unsatisfied, the application in India must be filed within three years after those proceedings are finalised. Merely obtaining certified copies or a certificate of non-satisfaction is not a step in aid of execution for this purpose. (¶¶ 42, 43)
- Execution sought in 2009 of the London decree dated 20 February 1995 was barred on the undisputed six-year limitation applicable there. The separate dispute over the deposit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was left untouched. (¶¶ 5, 43, 44)
Result
Appeal dismissed; rejection of the execution application upheld for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court. The separate deposit dispute was not determined.