https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293073 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. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:16:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293073 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293073