9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the execution of a foreign judgment based on the grounds of not being passed on merits under Section 13(b) of the Civil Procedure Code. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to the execution based on the decree not being passed on merits The appellant contended that the foreign judgment from the Singapore High Court was not passed on merits, making it inexecutable under Section 13(b) of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant argued that as soon as summons were served, both defendants appeared through counsel and filed affidavits for leave to defend. However, as the leave to defend was not granted, the Court passed a decree without considering the merits of the case. The first respondent, on the other hand, argued that the judgment was rendered after the defendants appeared through counsel and filed affidavits, indicating a judgment on merits. The Court below held that since the judgment was not ex parte and the defendants had an opportunity to defend, it should be considered a judgment on merits under Section 13(b) C. P. C. The appellant challenged this view in the appeal. Issue 2: Precedents on ex parte decrees under summary procedures The judgment referred to a case where an ex parte decree under the summary procedure of the Court of Ceylon was not considered a judgment on merits under Section 13 C. P. C. The Court distinguished between judgments required to dispose of a case finally and decrees passed under specific clauses, emphasizing the need for a judgment to be passed in accordance with the procedure. Another case cited involved a decree obtained under the summary procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code, where the Court held that a decree passed without considering the merits of the defense cannot be deemed a judgment on merits. Issue 3: Interpretation of judgments on merits The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court discussed the criteria for a judgment to be considered on merits, emphasizing that judgments must not be based on penalty or mere form under special or summary procedures. The Court highlighted that a judgment on merits requires the Court to determine the truth or falsity of contentions raised, rather than being based on default judgments or refusals of leave to defend. The Court concluded that a decree passed under summary procedures without considering the defense cannot be deemed a judgment on merits under Section 13(b) C. P. C. Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the judgment from the Singapore High Court was not a judgment on merits and, therefore, could not be executed in India. The order against the second respondent, who did not challenge the execution, stood final. The first respondent was permitted to proceed with the execution against the second respondent.
|
