Dismissed

Mohammed Nazir Abdul Aziz v. Kadheeja Kalladi Puthanpurayil

Kerala HC29 Sept 2021RP/406/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition challenging a judgment interpreting a Section 44A CPC notification. The Court held that the notification must be read with the 1999 bilateral agreement and is declaratory, allowing execution of decrees issued on or after that date, finding no ground for review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; petitioner at liberty to resist enforcement of decree in accordance with law.

Mohammed Nazir Abdul Aziz Vs Kadheeja Kalladi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA,

¶6

1943

¶7

RP NO. 406 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (FC) 140/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶10

MOHAMMED NAZIR ABDUL AZIZ AGED 48 YEARS S/O.A.K.ABDUL AZIZ,RESIDING AT MALIAKKEL HOUSE, KALLOOR POST,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-679562,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,ABOOBACKER,AGED 67 YEARS,S/O.HYDROSE, PERUMPARAMBATH HOUSE,PUNNAYURKULAM POST, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. K.P.SUDHEER(S-826)-22480 C.K.SHERIN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 KADHEEJA KALLADI PUTHANPURAYIL D/O.K.P.MOIDEENKUTTY,ASSET VERSATILE(PVT.)LTD, FLAT NO.G.J.,INDIRA ROAD,PALARIVATTOM,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682025,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R 453,B2,340,MUHAISNAH,4,DUBAI,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,MAYAN.K.P,AGED 63 YEARS,S/O.K.P.MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT AT 43SKYLINE MEADOWS,SADANAM ROAD,ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE-673020.

¶13

 RP No.406/2021 in OP FC 140/2021

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

2 NAZIA MOHAMMED NAZIR ABDUL AZIZ, D/O.KHADHEEJA KALLADI PUTHANPURAYIL AND MOHAMMED NAZIR ABDUL AZIZ,ASSETT VERSATILE (PVT.)LTD.,FLAT NO.G.J.INDIRA ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682025,CURRENTLY RESIDING AT R 453,B2,340,MUHAISNAH,4,DUBAI,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MAYAN.K.P,AGED 67 YEARS,S/O.K.P.MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT 43-SKYLINE MEADOWS,SADANAM ROAD,ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE673020. 3 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS. K.B.GANGESH SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.

¶18

=========================

¶19

R.P.No.406/2021 in O.P.(FC).No.140/2021

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 29th day of September, 2021

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶24

This review petition is filed at the instance of the

¶25

respondent.

¶26

This Court decided a question in regard to the purport of operation of a notification issued by the Central Government on 17/1/2020 in exercise of the power conferred under Explanation 1 to Section 44A of the Code

¶27

 RP No.406/2021 in OP FC 140/2021

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the above notification, the decree issued by the Court in UAE can be executed in India.

¶30

The notification is issued pursuant to the bilateral agreement entered into between India and UAE on 25/10/1999. This Court took the stand that the notification is a declaratory notification and relatable to the bilateral agreement and therefore, the Courts in India can execute any decree of the UAE Court issued on or after 25/10/1999.

¶31

The review petitioner, who was the respondent did not appear when the case was disposed. He alleges that the enforcement of the decree is only recognised from the date of the notification and, therefore, any decree prior to the date of the notification cannot be executed in India.

¶32

 RP No.406/2021 in OP FC 140/2021

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

In the review petition, this Court suo motu impleaded

¶35

the Union Government and directed the Union Government to state their stand.

¶36

The learned Central Government Counsel filed a statement on behalf of the Union Government stating that the notification was issued pursuant to the bilateral agreement dated 25/10/1999.

¶37

A notification under Section 44A CPC cannot be read in isolation of the bilateral agreement. It would not have been possible for the Government to issue a notification without reference to agreement with the foreign country. In absence of any reference to the date of application, the notification has to be construed only with reference to the date of bilateral agreement. In such scenario, for reasons

¶38

 RP No.406/2021 in OP FC 140/2021

¶39

-:4:-

¶40

stated in the above judgment, the notification itself has to be treated as a declaratory notification. No ground is made out for reviewing the judgment. The review petition fails and, it is accordingly, dismissed. The review petitioner is at liberty to resist the enforcement of decree in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶42

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶43

Mohammed Nazir Abdul Aziz v. Kadheeja Kalladi Puthanpurayil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Nazir Abdul Aziz v. Kadheeja Kalladi Puthanpurayil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Don Paul Vs Tisa Don @ Tisa Palackal Kuriakose

Abhilash a. Vs Samantha Sathyan

Rahmath Vs Iqbal

R.Prasad Vs Veena Prasad

V.G.Rajesh, Vs Megha

Rasha Vs Ajmal