Execution of decree after territorial extension and section 48 limitation principles upheld for transferred decrees.

A decree passed by a court in British India was held not to be a foreign decree or nullity merely because it had initially been transferred to a court outside the Code's territorial reach; once the Code was extended, the Morena court became competent to receive and execute it, and the ex parte nature of the decree did not affect its validity because the defendants had been served. Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as a limitation provision, not an absolute bar, so earlier execution efforts pursued with due diligence and defeated for want of jurisdiction could benefit from limitation-saving principles. The execution objection therefore failed and the decree remained executable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decree was a foreign decree or nullity and therefore not executable by the Morena court after the Code had been extended to that territory; (ii) whether execution was barred by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the decree was a foreign decree or nullity and therefore not executable by the Morena court after the Code had been extended to that territory.

Analysis: The decree was passed by a court within British India and was not a foreign judgment within the meaning of the Code. The fact that it was ex parte did not make it void, since the defendants had been served and had chosen not to appear. The earlier obstacle to execution arose only because, at the time of the first transfer, the Morena court was not a court governed by the Code. After the amendment extending the Code to the area, the Morena court became competent to receive and execute the transferred decree. The rule of private international law treating certain foreign decrees as nullities could not apply, because the present case was governed by the Code and by the effect of the extension of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The decree was not a foreign decree or nullity, and its transfer to the Morena court was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether execution was barred by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Section 48 was construed as prescribing a period of limitation and not as an absolute bar unrelated to limitation law. The earlier execution proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and good faith and had become infructuous for want of jurisdiction in the Morena court, so the decree-holders were entitled to the benefit of the saving principle in limitation law. The contention that section 48 was self-contained and immune from the operation of the Limitation Act was rejected.

Conclusion: Execution was not barred by section 48.

Final Conclusion: The decree was executable in the Morena court and the objections based on foreign-decree character and limitation failed, so the executing court was entitled to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the Code is extended so that both the court passing the decree and the court receiving it are courts under the Code, an earlier territorial incapacity does not render the decree a foreign decree or preserve a vested right to resist execution; section 48 operates as a limitation provision subject to the relevant saving principles.

---