P (PLP)
SETH GUR PARSAD SYAL‑Plaintiff Versus JUGAL KISHORE MAHRA‑Defendant
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Hassanally Agha, J. |
| Parties | SETH GUR PARSAD SYAL‑Plaintiff Versus JUGAL KISHORE MAHRA‑Defendant |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Hassanally Agha, J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (SETH GUR PARSAD SYAL‑Plaintiff Versus JUGAL KISHORE MAHRA‑Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947‑S. 4 Decree of Delhi Court‑Cannot be transferred to, or executed in any Court in Pakistan. Part (1) of section 4 clearly refers to the Courts in the Province of Bengal, the Punjab or Assam, and to no other Court. The decree sought to be executed can neither be transferred nor executed within the territories of Pakistan, as there is no such reciprocal arrangement. A. I. R. 1:950 Cal. 12 referred to. Fonseca, for Decree‑holder. Sherali, for Judgment‑debtor.
Judgment & Decree
Fonseca, for Decree‑holder. Sherali, for Judgment‑debtor. ORDER.‑This is an application to execute a decree passed by a Delhi Court before the partition . The decree has been transferred after the partition. But the admitted position is that there is no reciprocal arrangement for the execution of decrees between Pakistan and Bharat. I have heard Messrs. Fonseca and Sherali for the parties. Mr. Fonseca has relied on the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947, published at page 65 of the Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary of 13th September 1947, and argued that, by section 4 of this Order, the decree passed anywhere in Bharat can be transferred to and executed in any Court in Pakistan. The section, however, reads: Notwithstanding the creation of certain new provinces and the transfer of certain territories from the province of Assam to the Province of East Bengal by the Indian Independence Act; 1947‑‑ (1) all proceedings pending immediately before the appointed' day in any Civil or Criminal Court (other than a High Court) in the Province of Bengal, the Punjab or Assam shall be continued in that Court. (2) effect shall 'be given within the territories of either of the two Dominions to any judgment, decree, order or sentence of any such Court in the said Proceedings, as if it had been passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction within that Dominion. From the wordings of this section, it is clear that effect has to be given within the territories of either of the two Dominions to any judgment, decree, order or sentence of any Court referred to in this section, and part (1) of the section clearly refers to the Courts in the Province of Bengal, the Punjab or Assam, and to no other Court. The Delhi Court whose decree is sought to be executed now is not in the Province of Bengal, the Punjab or Assam, and it is, therefore, clear that the decree sought to fief executed here can neither be transferred nor executed within the territories of Pakistan, as there is no such reciprocal arrangement. The decree is clearly of a foreign Court now, and no other Provision of law has been pointed out by Mr. Fonseca to me by which this decree can be executed here. On the other hand, Mr. Sherali has relied on the case of Dominion of India v. Hiralal Bothra, reported in A. L. R. (37) 1950 Cal. 12, which lays down the general principle that, after the 15th August, 1947, the decree passed by a Court in Pakistan cannot be executed in a Court in Bharat, and vice‑versa as after the partition there is no. reciprocal arrangement between Bharat and Pakistan. The result, therefore, is that this application must be dismissed with cost. Order accordingly. K. M. A. Application dismissed.