Pakistan Case Law
1984 CLC 1941

KARAM CHAND LEAL AND ANOTHERS Decree holders vs MEHDI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 CLC 1941
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Execution Application No, 87 and F. C. D. No, 1 of 1976,
Date1983-05-21
Judge(s)k.A Ghani
ResultApplication dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns an execution application filed to enforce a foreign decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, England, against the defendant. The core legal question was whether a foreign judgment is executable in Pakistan when the defendant was neither a resident of the foreign jurisdiction at the time the action was initiated nor had submitted to the jurisdiction of that foreign court. The Court, relying on established precedents, held that such a foreign decree cannot be executed in Pakistan under these circumstances. The principle laid down is that the enforceability of a foreign judgment in Pakistan is contingent upon the defendant's residence in the foreign jurisdiction at the time of the action or the defendant's voluntary submission to that court's jurisdiction. As the defendant in the present case had neither resided in England nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, the application for execution was dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a foreign decree be executed in Pakistan if the defendant was not a resident of the foreign country at the time the action was brought?
  • Is a foreign judgment enforceable in Pakistan if the defendant did not submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court?
execution of foreign decreeforeign judgmentjurisdictionjudgment-debtorenforceability

' 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 in executable 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 suhmitted to the jurisdiction of the said foreign Court.

3. The learned counsel ralied 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 (1), Ghulam Muhammad v. Sarosh Ratanjiwadia (2) and Swindella & Sons v.

Haji Muhammaa Abdullah (3) 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 autorities 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.

(1) PLD 1952 Dacca 155 (2) PLD 1959 Kar. 624

(3) PLD 1957 Kar. 933

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.