P.B. Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an application in execution. The owners and partners of the firm Shah Kantilal as plaintiffs obtained an ex parte decree on 21-10-1948 from the Court of the Civil Judge, Okhamandal, in the former State of Baroda in Suit No. 4 of 1948-49 against the defendant Dominion of India as owning the East Indian Railway for the sum of Rs. 5683/12/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and also for the sum of Rs. 533/7/4 as costs with interest at the rate as aforesaid. On 21-3-1949, the State of Baroda merged with the then Province of Bombay. The decree-holder thereafter made an application on 24-4-1950, in Okhamandal Court for transfer of the decree to the Calcutta High Court for execution and on the same date there , was an order by the Civil Judge, Okhamandal,' transferring such decree to this High Court for execution. On 2-2-1951 the Tabular Statement in execution by the decree-holder was affirmed in this Court. The total amount for which the execution is asked amounts now to Rs. 7083/12/8. In the Tabular Statement the decree-holder asked for realisation of the decretal dues by attachment of the furniture of the East Indian Railway lying at No 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. On 14-2-1951, there was an objection that the decree could not be executed because no time was specified within which the State was to pay under the mandatory provisions of Section 82, Civil P. C. Thereupon the decree-holder made an application on 11-4-1951 to the Okhamandal Court to specify the time within which the State was to pay the amount and on the same date obtained an order from that Court specifying three months as the time within which to pay the amount and directing notice to Issue to the Government. I understand on 12-4-1951 no notice was given to the General Manager, East Indian Railway, by the Okhamandal Court to pay the decretal amount within three months. The State did not satisfy the decree by payment within the time so specified. As no payment was made the requisite report under Section 82, Civil P. C. was made on 20-8-1951 to the Government of West Bengal. On 5-12-1951 upon the plaintiff's application certificate of non-satisfaction was directed to be issued by the Judge at Okhamandal. Such certificate of non-satisfaction was issued by that Court under O. 21, R. 6, Civil P. C. on 10-12-1951. Thereafter on 22-7-1952, notice was issued by this High Court upon the Union of India under o. 21, R. 22(1) (a), Civil P. C. to show why the decree passed against the Union of India and dated 21-10-1948 in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1948-49 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Okhamandal, should not be executed. The application now comes up before me for disposal.
(2.) The main points of contention on behalf of the Government of India are that the suit in which the decree was obtained was filed in a Court of the Native State of the Baroda not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government and that such decree was obtained ex parte and not on the merits of the case and that the Dominion of India never submitted to the jurisdiction of the said Court and the decree passed against the Dominion of India is a nullity and cannot be executed. It is also said that the decree cannot be executed by reason of limitation. These are the main points advanced on behalf of the Union of India to resist the execution. I will record here that the point of limitation has not been pressed before me.
(3.) The main point for determination is whether the Court at Okhamandal in the former Native State of Baroda is a foreign Court and its judgment is to be regarded as a foreign judgment.;