MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH)versusGOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD.

                         [2022] 8 S.C.R. 93                              93


                   MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH                                 A
    (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GmbH)
                                  v.
                  GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD.
                                                                         B
                   (Civil Appeal No. 521 of 2022)
                        JANUARY 28, 2022
         [AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s. 44A – Execution of decrees      C
passed by courts in reciprocating territory – Execution of money
decree (in excess of Rs.20 lakhs) of a foreign court which is notified
as a superior court of a reciprocating territory, namely United
Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland u/s. 44A – Single Judge
of the High Court allowed the execution, however, the Division
Bench held that the High Court not being the District Court in terms     D
of s. 44 A, not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain execution
petition and directed to be transferred to the court of District judge
– On appeal, held: Decree of the High Court of England would be
considered to be a decree of superior Court of a reciprocating
territory as defined u/s. 44A – On conjoint reading of the s. 2(4)       E
which defines ‘District” and the s. 44A which refers to the term
“District Court”, makes it clear that it refers to the local limits of
the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction
and it includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil
jurisdiction of a High Court – Where there is a split jurisdiction
based on its pecuniary value, the District Court or the High Court       F
in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction is competent to exercise
power for execution of decree, including money decree of the foreign
Court of reciprocating jurisdiction –Ordinary original civil
jurisdiction of the High Court is always exercised, based on
pecuniary limits – Once the pecuniary jurisdiction at the given point    G
of time exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs as notified by the High Court u/s.
5(2), the High Court holds its exclusive jurisdiction as ordinary
original civil jurisdiction to execute a foreign decree u/s. 44A –
Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench quashed and set aside
– Delhi High Court Act, 1966 – s. 5(2).
                                                                         H
                                 93
94            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A          Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 So far as the expression “superior Court of any
     reciprocating territory” as defined under Section 44A of the Code
     is concerned, the judgment and decree has been passed by the
     notified superior Court of the reciprocating territory, namely,
B    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland within
     the meaning of Section 44A of the Code vide notification dated
     1st March, 1953 issued by the Ministry of Law, thus it leaves no
     doubt that the decree of the High Court of England would be
     considered to be a decree of superior Court of a reciprocating
     territory. [Para 23][103-A-B]
C
           1.2 The expression ‘District” is defined under Section 2(4)
     of the Code and the term “District Court” referred under Section
     44A of the Code although not defined, but on conjoint reading of
     the provision makes it clear that it refers to the local limits of the
     jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction
D    (provisions of the Code called a “District Court”) and it includes
     the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High
     Court and it is not disputed that principal civil Court of original
     jurisdiction is normally a District Court (with whatever change in
     the nomenclature) and the High Courts in India exercising
E    ordinary original civil jurisdiction are not too many, but where
     there is a split jurisdiction based on its pecuniary value, notified
     from time to time, the District Court or the High Court in its
     ordinary original civil jurisdiction is competent to exercise power
     for execution of decree, including money decree of the foreign
     Court of reciprocating jurisdiction, provided other conditions are
F    complied with as contemplated under Section 44A of the Code.
     [Para 25][105-C-F]
           1.3 Section 44A provides for execution of decrees passed
     by the foreign Courts in reciprocating territories. It, inter alia,
     stipulates that where a certified copy of a decree of any of the
G    superior Court of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a
     District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had
     been passed by a District Court. Together with the certified copy
     of the decree, a certificate from such superior court is to be filed
     stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied
H
MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND                95
             GmbH) v. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD.


or adjusted. Such a certificate is the conclusive proof of the extent    A
of such satisfaction or adjustment. Sub-section 3 of Section 44A
further lays down that provisions of Section 47 shall apply to such
execution proceedings and the Court can refuse execution of
any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that
the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses
                                                                         B
(a) to (f) in Section 13. [Para 26][105-F-H; 106-A]
       1.4 The ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court
is always exercised, based on pecuniary limits. It would be
impossible to read into Section 44A of the Code that even though
the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Court is restricted, still for the
                                                                         C
purpose of execution of a foreign decree, it becomes the District
Court in respect to those matters which fall within the ordinary
original civil jurisdiction of the High Court and the expression
“district” defined under Section 2(4) of the Code will have to be
given its true effect. To read the expression “District Court” in
Section 44A for execution of foreign decree, it will be construed        D
to be a Court holding ordinary original civil jurisdiction in terms
of its pecuniary limits as being notified under Section 5(2) of the
Act 1966. [Para 27][106-B-D]
      1.5 Once the pecuniary jurisdiction at the given point of
time exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs as notified by the High Court under           E
Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 (later vide notification dated 10th
August, 2015 (w.e.f. 26th October, 2015) pecuniary limits has
been revised to Rs.2 crores), it is the High Court of Delhi which
holds its exclusive jurisdiction as ordinary original civil
jurisdiction to execute a foreign decree under Section 44A of the        F
Code and it goes without saying that execution always is in
continuation of the proceedings. [Para 28][106-D-E]
      1.6 Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act 1918, of which the
Division Bench has put its emphasis, which is applicable to Delhi,
the Court of District Judge would be the principal civil Court of        G
original jurisdiction. Under Section 5(1) of the Act 1966, the High
Court of Delhi exercises all such original, appellate and other
jurisdiction as was exercisable by the High Court of Punjab in
the Union Territory of Delhi. Then, there is Section 5(2) of the

                                                                         H
96            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A    Act 1966 which starts with a non-obstante clause which empowers
     the High Court of Delhi to exercise its ordinary original civil
     jurisdiction in every suit where the pecuniary value exceeds, as
     being notified by the competent authority and thus, the High Court
     of Delhi indeed holds original civil jurisdiction in a suit where the
     value exceeds its pecuniary limits and if Section 24 of the Punjab
B
     Courts Act, 1918 is read with Section 5(2) of the Act 1966, it is
     quite clear that certain jurisdiction has been taken away from the
     District Court and conferred with the High Court of Delhi and
     this original civil jurisdiction is only in respect to the suits where
     the pecuniary limit exceeds as notified by the authority under
C    Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 and that would make the High Court
     of Delhi, the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction, for all
     practical purposes. [Para 29][106-F-H; 107-A-B]
           1.7 The Division Bench proceeded on the basis of the
     expression “District Court”, as being referred under Section 44A
D    of the Code but it has not taken into consideration the other
     relevant provisions of which a reference has been made while
     coming to the conclusion that the expression “District” as defined
     under Section 2(4) of the Code only lays down the limits of the
     jurisdiction of the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction and
     that includes the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High
E    Court and once the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeds as being
     notified under the relevant statute, the jurisdiction vests
     exclusively with the High Court as an ordinary original civil
     jurisdiction for execution of a foreign decree under Section 44A
     subject to the just objections which are available to the parties/
F    judgment debtor as envisaged under Section 13 of the Code. [Para
     30][107-B-D]
           1.8 The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
     is quashed and set aside. Since the parties have not addressed
     on merits, execution petition is restored on the file of the Division
G    Bench of the High Court. This being an old matter where the
     foreign decree could not have been executed for almost 16 years
     by this time, it is appropriate to let the Division Bench take up
     the matter on priority and decide the same on its own merits as
     expeditiously as possible. [Para 31][107-D-F]

H
MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND                         97
             GmbH) v. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD.


        General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar                            A
        Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 MIA 605 : 20 ER 912 –
        referred to.
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 521 of
2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2014 of the High Court              B
of Delhi at New Delhi in E.F.A. (O.S.) No. 3 of 2014.
      Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mohna M. Lal, Ms. Geetali
Talukdar, Joydeep Bordoloi, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aruna Gupta, Simran Mehta,                     C
Abhishek Puri, Advs. for the Respondent.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        RASTOGI, J.
        1. Leave granted.
                                                                                  D
       2. The appellant/decree holder has challenged the judgment of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 1st July, 2014
relegating to file a petition for execution of a money decree dated 7th
February, 2006(in excess of Rs. 20 lakhs) of a foreign Court indisputedly
notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory before the District
Court in view of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure,                      E
1908(hereinafter being referred to as the “Code”).
       3. It is an old saying that the difficulties of the litigant in India
begin when he has obtained a decree. The evil was noticed as far back
in 1872 by the Privy Council in relation to the difficulties faced by the
decree holder in execution of the decree (MIA p.612)1. After more than            F
a century, there has been no improvement and still the decree holder
faces the same problem what was being faced in the past. A litigant
coming to Court seeking relief is not interested in receiving a paper
decree when he succeeds in establishing his case. What he primarily
wants from the Court of Justice is the relief and if it is a money decree,        G
he wants that money what he is entitled for in terms of the decree, must
be satisfied by the judgment debtor at the earliest possible without fail
keeping in view the reasonable restrictions/rights which are available to
1
  General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 MIA
605 : 20 ER 912                                                                   H
98             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A    the judgment debtor under the provisions of the statute or the code, as
     the case may be.
            4. Instant case is the live illustration before us where the decree
     holder was able to get a money decree of a foreign Court which is
     notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory way back on 7th
B    February, 2006 and after 16 years have been rolled by, still the screen is
     smokey and not clear as to which is the forum where he could approach
     for execution of a decree.
            5. The brief facts culled out from the record are that the appellant
     initiated proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench
     Division, Commercial Court, United Kingdom(“English Court”) which is
C
     a superior Court of a reciprocating territory(namely, United Kingdom of
     Great Britain and Northern Island) notified under Section 44A of the
     Code vide Notification No. SRO 399 dated 1st March, 1953 issued by
     the Ministry of Law as amended by GSR 201 dated 13th March, 1958.
            6. Earlier, a default decree was passed due to non-appearance of
D    the respondent/judgment debtor in UK Court on 6 th February, 2003. The
     appellant issued a winding up notice to the respondent, who objected the
     same as the judgment dated 6th February, 2003 was a default decree. To
     meet the objection raised by the respondent, the appellant approached
     the English Court and sought setting aside of the default decree and
E    prayed for passing a decree on merits of the case. At this juncture, the
     respondent entered appearance and the English Court by a judgment
     and decree dated 7th February, 2006 granted a money decree for a
     principal sum of US $ 5,824,564.74.
            7. It is pertinent to note that the respondent did not file any appeal
     against the judgment and decree dated 7th February 2006 and that has
F    attained finality.
            8. The total decretal amount indisputedly on the date of filing of
     the execution petition before the Delhi High Court on 27th April, 2006
     was exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs which was the pecuniary limits of the Delhi
     High Court in terms of Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act,
G    1966(hereinafter being referred to as “Act 1966”) which was later
     enhanced to Rs.2 crores in the year 2015, to entertain the execution
     petition as the principal Court of original jurisdiction.
             9. It has been alleged by the appellant that the decretal amount, if
     it is taken at the face value as on 20th January, 2022, may come to
H    approximately Rs. 99 crores.
MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND                          99
     GmbH) v. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD. [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]


       10. The appellant filed a petition for execution of money decree in         A
the High Court of Delhi on 27th April, 2006. A reply to the execution
petition was filed by the respondent on 17th January 2007, raising several
objections which are available at its command as envisaged under Section
13 of the Code. Later a further objection was raised that the High Court
of Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition in view of
                                                                                   B
Section 44A of the Code.
       11. Learned Single Judge of the High Court overruled the
preliminary objections and held that taking value of the execution of the
money decree dated 7th February, 2006 of the English Court exceeding
Rs. 20 lakhs, at given point of time, i.e., 27th April, 2006(the day on
which the execution petition was filed), High Court of Delhi holds the             C
exclusive jurisdiction of ordinary original civil jurisdiction and after meeting
out other objections on merits decided the execution petition by a judgment
dated 29th November, 2013. The operative part of the judgment are as
under:-
       E.A. No. 653 of 2009                                                        D

       69. This is an application by the DH for a direction to the JD to
       deposit the original title deeds of Sahibabad property.
       70. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and a
       direction is issued to the JD to deposit the original title deeds of        E
       the property, land measuring 18774 sq. yds. At 8/7, Site-IV,
       Sahibabad, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad in the
       Court within two weeks, and when so deposited, it shall be kept in
       a sealed cover by the Court. At the time of filing the original title
       deeds, the JD will deliver to the learned counsel for the DH a
       photocopy thereof.                                                          F
       EA No. 654 of 2009
       71. By this application, the DH seeks a clarification that the order
       dated 3rd November, 2009 passed by the Court releasing the lien
       on the property at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh should be made
                                                                                   G
       conditional upon the Managing Director (MD) or any other
       competent director of the JD furnishing a written undertaking that
       the Ghaziabad property is free from all encumbrances and further
       than no written consent from the State Bank of India (‘SBI’)
       under Clause 11 of the agreement for hypothecation of goods and
       assets dated 24th November, 2008 is required.                               H
100             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A           72. Despite notice having been served in both these applications
            way back on 20th November 2009, no reply has been filed to this
            application.
            73. Consequently, the application is allowed and a direction is issued
            to the MD/authorized Director of the JD to file an affidavit in this
B           Court within two weeks clarifying (a) that the property at
            Sahibabad, Ghaziabad is free from all encumbrances or charge
            as on the date of the order dated 3rd November, 2009; (b) that no
            written consent from the SBI under Clause 11 of the Agreement
            for hypothecation of the goods and assets dated 24th November,
            2008 is required for enforcing the said order vis-à-vis the said
C           Sahibabad property in terms of the statement made by the JD to
            the Court on 27th April, 2006 and (c ) that, as on date, there is no
            lien/charge etc. created on the Sahibabad property.
            74. The application is disposed of.”

D           12. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court
      of Delhi dated 29th November, 2013 was assailed by the respondent-
      judgment debtor before the Division Bench of the High Court.
              13. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the facts and
      circumstances, considered it appropriate to examine the singular issue
E     confining it to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi in executing the
      money decree dated 7th February, 2006 of the English Court, in exercise
      of its original jurisdiction in terms of Section 44A of the Code and after
      the parties being heard, arrived at the conclusion that Section 44A is an
      independent right conferred on a foreign decree holder for enforcement
      of its decree in India. It is a fresh cause of action and has no co-relation
F     with jurisdictional issues. The scheme of Section 44A of the Code is
      alien to the scheme of domestic execution as provided under Section
      39(3) of the Code and finally held that the High Court of Delhi, not being
      a District Court, in terms of Section 44A of the Code, is not vested with
      the jurisdiction to entertain execution petition and directed to be
G     transferred to the Court of District Judge within whose jurisdiction the
      property sought to be attached is situated for being dealt with in
      accordance with law, which is a subject matter of challenge in appeal
      before us.
             14. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing
      for the appellant submits that the jurisdiction for execution of a foreign
H
MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND                         101
     GmbH) v. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD. [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]


Court’s decree of a reciprocating territory vests with the High Court of          A
Delhi, provided the value of the money decree exceeds the pecuniary
limits as notified under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966.
       15. Learned counsel further submits that it is not in dispute that
the judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 has been passed by a
notified superior Court of the reciprocating territory, namely, United            B
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the meaning of
Section 44A of the Code in terms of a notification dated 1st March 1953
issued by the Ministry of Law. The High Court of Delhi also vests with
the ordinary original civil jurisdiction, subject to the pecuniary limits as
being notified under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 and it would be impossible
to read into Section 44A that even though the pecuniary jurisdiction of a         C
civil Court(which lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction) is restricted, only for
the purpose of execution of a foreign decree, it becomes a District Court
in respect of the matters which fall within the ordinary civil jurisdiction
of the High Court and when there is a split jurisdiction in the cities like
Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai, the High Court would have to be               D
considered to be included as “a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction”
where it exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction as being contemplated in the
respective statutes alike Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 in the instant case.
       16. Learned counsel further submits that there can be two or
more Courts which are concurrently a principal civil Court of original            E
jurisdiction subject to their pecuniary limits as being envisaged under
Section 5(2) of the Act 1966. If that being so, if pecuniary jurisdiction
exceeds what is prescribed/notified under the Act, it is the High Court of
Delhi which will be considered to be the principal Court of original civil
jurisdiction as defined under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 and the
execution petition being a continuation of the suit proceedings, the Division     F
Bench of the High Court has committed a manifest error in holding that
the High Court of Delhi is not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain an
execution petition as being a District Court defined in terms of Section
44A of the Code.
       17. Per Contra, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for             G
the respondent, while supporting the finding recorded in the impugned
judgment, submits that Section 44A is an independent right conferred on
a foreign decree holder for enforcement of its decree in India and the
scheme of Section 44A of the Code is alien to the scheme of domestic
execution as provided under Section 39(3) of the Code. The domestic               H
102             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A     decree can indeed be executed by the Court which passed the decree or
      Court of competent jurisdiction to which it is transferred for execution.
      So far as execution of foreign decree is concerned, it is being governed
      by an independent right conferred under Section 44A of the Code which
      unequivocally confers exclusive jurisdiction in this regard on a “District
      Court” and the words mandating the competence of the executing Court,
B
      to try the original cause, in which the decree was passed, are conspicuous
      by their absence, in this provision.
             18. To be more specific, learned counsel submits that Section
      44A of the Code is in the nature of an independent, enabling provision
      which gives the decree holder a fresh and new cause of action
C     irrespective of the original character of the cause in which the decree
      came to be passed.
             19. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the pecuniary
      competence to try a suit of the decretal amount is concerned, it may be
      in the context of the domestic decree for execution as referred to under
D     Sections 38 and 39 of the Code and once Section 44A confers exclusive
      jurisdiction on District Court in which the money decree of a foreign
      Court has to be filed for execution, no other Court holds competence
      other than the District Court for execution of a foreign decree.
               20. Learned counsel further submits that Section 5(2) of the Act
E     1966 conferred with a limited ordinary original civil jurisdiction qua ‘suits’
      above a certain pecuniary value and further submits that the expression
      “suit” as used in Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 has to be understood in its
      ordinary, limited sense of a ‘Civil Suit’, and will not include execution
      proceedings. Section 4 of the Delhi High Court(Amendment) Act, 2003
F     draws a distinction between a “suit” and “other proceedings” and submits
      that it is the District Court alone which holds jurisdiction for executing a
      foreign decree and no error has been committed by the High Court in
      the impugned judgment which may call for interference of this Court.
             21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
G     assistance perused the material available on record.
             22. The question that emerges for our consideration is whether
      the High Court of Delhi in exercise of its original jurisdiction is a competent
      Court to entertain a petition for executing a money decree(in excess of
      Rs.20 lakhs) of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of
      reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code.
H
MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND                     103
     GmbH) v. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD. [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]


       23. It is not disputed that so far as the expression “superior Court   A
of any reciprocating territory” as defined under Section 44A of the Code
is concerned, the judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 has
been passed by the notified superior Court of the reciprocating territory,
namely, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland within
the meaning of Section 44A of the Code vide notification dated 1st March,
                                                                              B
1953 issued by the Ministry of Law, thus it leaves no doubt that the
decree of the High Court of England would be considered to be a decree
of superior Court of a reciprocating territory.
        24. In order to appreciate the submissions made, it may be relevant
to first take a look at the scheme of the Code and also relevant provisions
of the Act 1966 which are reproduced hereunder:-                              C

      “Section 2(4) of the Code – “District”
      “district” means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal
      Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a “District
      Court”), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil   D
      jurisdiction of a High Court;
      Section 6 of the Code – “Pecuniary Jurisdiction”
      Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein
      contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits
      the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the          E
      pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.
      Section 13 of the Code – “When Foreign Judgement not
      Conclusive”
      A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby
                                                                              F
      directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between
      parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the
      same title except—
             (a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of
             competent jurisdiction;
                                                                              G
             (b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;
             (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be
             founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal
             to recognise the law of India in cases in which such law is
             applicable;                                                      H
104      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A           (d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was
            obtained are opposed to natural justice;
            (e) where it has been obtained by fraud;
            (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any
B           law in force in India.
      Section 44A of the Code - “Execution of Decrees passed
      by Courts in reciprocating territory”
      (1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior
      courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District
C
      Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed
      by the District Court.
      (2) Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a
      certificate from such superior court stating the extent, if any, to
D     which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate
      shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be
      conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.
      (3) The provisions of Section 47 shall as from the filing of the
      certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District
E     Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court
      shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the
      satisfaction of the court that the decree falls within any of the
      exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13.
      Explanation 1.—”Reciprocating territory” means any country
F     or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by
      notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating
      territory for the purposes of this section; and “superior courts”,
      with reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may
      be specified in the said notification.
G     Explanation 2.—”Decree” with reference to a superior court
      means any decree or Judgment of such Court under which a sum
      of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes
      or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other
      penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if
      such an award is enforceable as a decree or Judgment.]]
H
MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND                         105
     GmbH) v. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD. [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]


       Section 5 Delhi High Court Act, 1966 – “Jurisdiction of                    A
       High Court of Delhi”
       (1) The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories
       for the time being included in the Union Territory of Delhi, all
       such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in
       force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect      B
       of the said territories by the High Court of Punjab.
       (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
       being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect
       of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every
       suit the value of which exceeds Rupees twenty lakhs.                       C
       25. The expression ‘District” is defined under Section 2(4) of the
Code and the term “District Court” referred under Section 44A of the
Code although not defined, but on conjoint reading of the provision makes
it clear that it refers to the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal
civil Court of original jurisdiction (provisions of the Code called a “District   D
Court”) and it includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil
jurisdiction of a High Court and it is not disputed that principal civil Court
of original jurisdiction is normally a District Court (with whatever change
in the nomenclature) and the High Courts in India exercising ordinary
original civil jurisdiction are not too many, but where there is a split
jurisdiction based on its pecuniary value, notified from time to time, the        E
District Court or the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction is
competent to exercise power for execution of decree, including money
decree of the foreign Court of reciprocating jurisdiction, provided other
conditions are complied with as contemplated under Section 44A of the
Code.                                                                             F
       26. Section 44A of the Code provides for execution of decrees
passed by the foreign Courts in reciprocating territories. It, inter alia,
stipulates that where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior
Court of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the
decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by a District            G
Court. Together with the certified copy of the decree, a certificate from
such superior court is to be filed stating the extent, if any, to which the
decree has been satisfied or adjusted. Such a certificate is the conclusive
proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment. Sub-section 3 of
Section 44A of the Code further lays down that provisions of Section 47
                                                                                  H
106             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A     of the Code shall apply to such execution proceedings and the Court can
      refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of
      the Court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in
      clauses (a) to (f) in Section 13 of the Code.
             27. The ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court is
B     always exercised, based on pecuniary limits. It would be impossible to
      read into Section 44A of the Code that even though the pecuniary
      jurisdiction of Civil Court is restricted, still for the purpose of execution
      of a foreign decree, it becomes the District Court in respect to those
      matters which fall within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the
      High Court and the expression “district” defined under Section 2(4) of
C     the Code will have to be given its true effect. To read the expression
      “District Court” in Section 44A for execution of foreign decree, it will be
      construed to be a Court holding ordinary original civil jurisdiction in terms
      of its pecuniary limits as being notified under Section 5(2) of the Act
      1966.
D            28. It leaves no manner of doubt that once the pecuniary jurisdiction
      at the given point of time exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs as notified by the High
      Court under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 (later vide notification dated
      10th August, 2015 (w.e.f. 26th October, 2015) pecuniary limits has been
      revised to Rs.2 crores), it is the High Court of Delhi which holds its
E     exclusive jurisdiction as ordinary original civil jurisdiction to execute a
      foreign decree under Section 44A of the Code and it goes without saying
      that execution always is in continuation of the proceedings.
             29. Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act 1918, of which the Division
      Bench has put its emphasis, which is applicable to Delhi, the Court of
F     District Judge would be the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction.
      Under Section 5(1) of the Act 1966, the High Court of Delhi exercises
      all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as was exercisable by
      the High Court of Punjab in the Union Territory of Delhi. Then, there is
      Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 which starts with a non-obstante clause
      which empowers the High Court of Delhi to exercise its ordinary original
G     civil jurisdiction in every suit where the pecuniary value exceeds, as
      being notified by the competent authority and thus, the High Court of
      Delhi indeed holds original civil jurisdiction in a suit where the value
      exceeds its pecuniary limits and if Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act,
      1918 is read with Section 5(2) of the Act 1966, it is quite clear that
H     certain jurisdiction has been taken away from the District Court and
MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND                          107
     GmbH) v. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD. [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]


conferred with the High Court of Delhi and this original civil jurisdiction        A
is only in respect to the suits where the pecuniary limit exceeds as notified
by the authority under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 and that would make
the High Court of Delhi, the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction,
for all practical purposes.
       30. The Division Bench has proceeded on the basis of the                    B
expression “District Court”, as being referred under Section 44A of the
Code but it has not taken into consideration the other relevant provisions
of which a reference has been made by us while coming to the conclusion
that the expression “District” as defined under Section 2(4) of the Code
only lays down the limits of the jurisdiction of the principal civil Court of
original jurisdiction and that includes the ordinary original civil jurisdiction   C
of the High Court and once the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeds as being
notified under the relevant statute, the jurisdiction vests exclusively with
the High Court as an ordinary original civil jurisdiction for execution of a
foreign decree under Section 44A subject to the just objections which
are available to the parties/judgment debtor as envisaged under Section            D
13 of the Code.
       31. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and accordingly allowed.
The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 1 st July
2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the parties have not
addressed on merits, E.F.A.(O.S.) No. 3 of 2014 is restored on the file            E
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. This being an old
matter where the foreign decree dated 7th February, 2006 could not
have been executed for almost 16 years by this time, we consider it
appropriate to observe that let the Division Bench may take up the matter
on priority and decide the same on its own merits as expeditiously as
possible keeping in view its long awaiting execution in accordance with            F
law, but in no case later than four months.
       32. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Nidhi Jain                                                       Appeal allowed.   G
(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)




                                                                                   H