Abhay Shreeniwas Oka JUDGMENT
Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant/decree holder has challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 1st July, 2014 relegating to file a petition for execution of a money decree dated 7th February, 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 (hereinafter being referred to as the "Code").
3. It is an old saying that the difficulties of the litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. 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 (MIA p. 612)1. 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 litigant coming to Court seeking relief is not interested in receiving a paper decree when he succeeds in establishing his case. What he primarily wants from the Court of Justice is the relief and if it is a money decree, he wants that money what he is entitled for in terms of the decree, must be satisfied by the judgment debtor at the earliest possible without fail 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.
4. 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 smokey and not clear as to which is the forum where he could approach for execution of a decree.
5. The brief facts culled out from the record are that the Appellant initiated proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, United Kingdom("English Court") which is a superior Court of a reciprocating territory(namely, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island) notified Under Section 44A of the Code vide Notification No. SRO 399 : MANU/CNBN/0328/1953 dated 1st March, 1953 issued by the Ministry of Law as amended by GSR 201 dated 13th March, 1958.
6. Earlier, a default decree was passed due to non-appearance of the Respondent/judgment debtor in UK Court on 6th February, 2003. The Appellant issued a winding up notice to the Respondent, who objected the same as the judgment dated 6th February, 2003 was a default decree. To meet the objection raised by the Respondent, the Appellant approached the English Court and sought setting aside of the default decree and prayed for passing a decree on merits of the case. At this juncture, the Respondent entered appearance and the English Court by a judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 granted a money decree for a principal sum of US $ 5,824,564.74.
7. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent did not file any appeal again........