1999 (5) TMI 617 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Execution of a foreign decree in India.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Determination of whether the foreign judgment was given on merits.
4. Objections raised under Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Admissibility of documents as evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Execution of a Foreign Decree in India:
The plaintiffs-decree holders sought to execute a judgment from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, in India. They contended that the judgment, being from a reciprocating country, could be executed in this Court under Sections 13 and 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court noted that for executing a foreign decree, the decree holder must comply with Order XXI, Rule 10, and the court must issue notice to the judgment debtor under Order XXI, Rule 22.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The decree holders provided a certified copy of the judgment along with a certificate from the Queen's Bench Division stating that the decree remained unsatisfied. They argued that obtaining a fresh certificate would incur additional costs in foreign exchange. The court acknowledged the procedural requirements under Order XXI, Rule 11(2), and noted that the decree holders had complied with these requirements.

3. Determination of Whether the Foreign Judgment was Given on Merits:
The judgment debtor contended that the foreign judgment was not given on merits as it was ex parte and obtained under a summary procedure. The court examined whether the judgment met the criteria of being on merits by considering the procedural compliance under Order 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England. It was noted that the judgment debtor had acknowledged service and intended to defend the suit, but the judgment was pronounced after an inter parte hearing.

4. Objections Raised Under Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The judgment debtor argued that the foreign judgment was violative of Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and was not conclusive. The court referred to various judgments, including those of the Privy Council and other High Courts, to determine whether the judgment was on merits. It concluded that the judgment debtor failed to prove that the judgment was not on merits, especially since the procedural requirements were met, and the judgment was pronounced after due process.

5. Admissibility of Documents as Evidence:
The court addressed objections regarding the admissibility of xerox copies of documents filed by the decree holders, stating that they were not certified as required by Section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, these documents were not considered. Additionally, the judgment debtors sought to rely on a xerox copy of a document purportedly showing satisfaction of the decree, but the court refused adjournment for obtaining the original, noting that the judgment debtors could apply under Order XXI, Rule 2 to show satisfaction of the decree.

Conclusion:
The court granted leave to the decree holder to execute the judgment dated 3rd July 1996, passed by the Supreme Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division. The objections under Section 13(b) were dismissed as they lacked merit. The execution order was stayed for a period of eight weeks upon the application of the judgment debtors.