Civil Revision No.577 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.577 of 2009 Date of decision:05.02.2010. M/s Sandhar & Kang Limited ...Petitioner Versus Karnail Singh Sandhar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Mr. K.V.S. Kang, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The foundational premise of the impugned order, recorded by the learned District Judge, is that the orders dated 05.07.2007 and 14.02.2008 (implementation whereof had been applied for by the petitioner herein) “the two orders under execution cannot be said to be the judgments to be conclusive as to the matters thereby adjudicated upon between the parties the same having not been given on merits of the case and, therefore, said orders/decrees cannot be enforced in India”. It was on the above indicated premise that the learned District Judge held that “the orders in question is not maintainable the same having not been passed on merits and because of the bar imposed under Section 3[b] of the Code of Civil Procedure the same are not enforceable in India”. In the course of the hearing, the learned Senior counsel Civil Revision No.577 of 2009 -2- appearing on behalf of the petitioner has shown to this Court the certified copies of the detailed judgments relatable to the orders dated 05.07.2007 and 14.02.2008. It is argued that the orders presented before that Court were the summary orders thereof. It is presently beyond the pale of controversy that these detailed judgments were not presented in the course of the proceedings pending before the learned District Judge. That Court did not, thus, obviously have the occasion to adjudicate upon the relevant controversy in its correct perspective. It was, thus, a case of dereliction on the part of both the parties to have refrained from making a presentation of the detailed judgments rendered by the Foreign Court. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that there are certain other judgments rendered by the Canadian Courts in the cause between the parties which, too, were not made available to the learned District Judge. There can, thus, be no escape from the conclusion that the presentation made on behalf of the parties before the learned District Judge was not appropriate in view of the fact that the relevant documentation was not made available to the Court for consideration. The matter is remitted to the learned District Judge, Sangrur for an adjudication afresh in the light of whatever documentation may be made available on behalf of the parties on the date of the hearing. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sangrur on 10.02.2010. The learned District Judge, Sangrur is requested to dispose of the proceedings within 7 days thereof. The learned Court shall adjudicate upon the controversy, Civil Revision No.577 of 2009 -3- completely unfazed by whatever it may have taken earlier in the matter. In fact, this Court has also not gone into the merits of the controversy in the circumstances of the case. The Trial Court records be forwarded forthwith to the Court of the learned District Judge, Sangrur. Disposed of accordingly. February 05, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE