Execution of Indian decree in Goa upheld after procedural law change and Article 261(3) support

A decree passed by a court in India was treated as enforceable in Goa once the Code of Civil Procedure was extended there, because the earlier inability to execute it was only a procedural impediment and not a vested right of the judgment debtor. The decree was not rendered a nullity merely because the suit had not been fully contested, and the appellate court had to apply the change in procedural law during the appeal. Article 261(3) was also read as supporting execution of decrees anywhere in India according to law. The decree was therefore executable in Goa.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decree passed by the Bombay High Court could be executed in Goa after the Code of Civil Procedure was extended to Goa and in light of Article 261(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The decree was passed by a court within India and was not rendered a nullity merely because the judgment debtor had not fully contested the suit. The inability to execute the decree in Goa before the extension of the Code of Civil Procedure was only a procedural impediment and not a vested right in favour of the judgment debtor. Since execution is a matter of procedure, the appellate court was bound to take note of the change in law that occurred during the pendency of the appeal. Once the Code of Civil Procedure was made applicable to Goa, the bar to execution disappeared. Article 261(3) also supported execution anywhere within the territory of India according to law.

Conclusion: The decree was executable in Goa, and the order directing execution was .

---