Framing Of Issues Not Mandatory in Execution of Foreign Decrees

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Elis Jane Quinlan & Ors. v. Naveen Kumar Seth (2026) dismissed a writ petition filed by foreign decree holders challenging an order of the District Judge that had framed issues and permitted leading of evidence in execution proceedings under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 

• The Court clarified that framing of issues is not mandatory in execution of foreign decrees from reciprocating territories.

What was the Background of Elis Jane Quinlan & Ors. v. Naveen Kumar Seth (2026) Case? 

• The decree was passed by the Fujairah Civil Court, UAE. 
• The UAE had been notified as a reciprocating territory under Section 44A CPC. 
• The decree holders initiated execution proceedings in India. 
• The judgment debtor filed an application seeking framing of issues and permission to lead evidence. 
• The executing court framed multiple issues relating to: 
  • Fraud 
  • Violation of principles of natural justice 
  • Suppression of material facts 
  • Limitation 
  • Maintainability 
• Aggrieved, the decree holders approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction.

What were the Court’s Observations?

Distinction Between Reciprocating and Non-Reciprocating Territories: 

The Court examined the scheme of Sections 13, 14 and 44A CPC and reiterated the fundamental distinction: 

• Reciprocating Territory – The foreign decree is executable as if it were a domestic decree, subject only to limited exceptions under Section 13 CPC. 
• Non-Reciprocating Territory – A fresh suit must be filed on the basis of the foreign judgment, leading to a full trial. 

Thus, proceedings under Section 44A are not equivalent to instituting a suit on a foreign judgment.

Nature of Inquiry Under Section 44A: 

The Court clarified that: 

• The inquiry under Section 44A(3) read with Section 13 CPC is ordinarily summary in nature. 
• The burden to establish that the decree falls within any exception under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 CPC lies on the judgment debtor. 
• The existence of exceptions must ordinarily be gathered from: 
  • Pleadings 
  • The foreign judgment 
  • Proceedings before the foreign court 

Final Directions: 

• The Writ Petition was dismissed. 
• The District Judge was directed to render findings on the issues framed expeditiously, preferably within three months.

What is Section 13 of CPC? 

• Section 13 of CPC states that a foreign Judgement shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except— 
  • (a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; 
  • (b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case; 
  • (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; 
  • (d) where the proceedings in which the Judgement was obtained are opposed to natural justice; 
  • (e) where it has been obtained by fraud; 
  • (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. 
• This section provides that a foreign Judgement may operate as res judicata except in the aforementioned six clauses. 
• (a) Foreign Judgement Not by a Competent Court 
  • A Judgement of a foreign court to be conclusive between the parties must be a Judgement pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. 
  • A competent court implies a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 
  • The court of a foreign country has jurisdiction in the following cases: 
    • Where at the time of the commencement of the action the defendant was resident or present in such country, so as to have the benefit and be under the protection of laws. 
    • Where the defendant is at the time of the Judgement in action, subject or citizen of such country. 
    • Where the party objecting to the jurisdiction of the courts of such country has by his own conduct, submitted to such jurisdiction by 
      • Appearing as plaintiff in the action or counterclaiming, or 
      • Voluntarily appearing as defendant in such action, or 
      • Having expressly or impliedly contracted to submit to the jurisdiction of such courts. 
  • In the case of Bharat Nidhi Limited v. Megh Raj Mahajan (1964), it was held that a foreign Judgement has to be passed only by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction to operate as res judicata in the Indian courts. 
• (b) Foreign Judgement Not on Merits 
  • In order to be conclusive, the foreign Judgement must be on the merits i.e., which involves the application of the mind of the court to the truth or falsity of the case. 
  • The Actual test for deciding whether the Judgement has been given on merits or not is to see whether it was merely passed as a matter of course, or by way of penalty of any conduct of the defendant or is based upon a consideration of the truth or falsity of the plaintiff's claim. 
• (c) Foreign Judgement Against Indian or International Law 
  • A Judgement based upon an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize law of India where such law is applicable is not conclusive. 
  • The mistake must be apparent on the face of the proceeding. 
• (d) Foreign Judgement Opposed to Natural Justice 
  • The Judgement must observe the minimum requirements of natural justice, that is it must give reasonable notice to the parties to the dispute and afford each party adequate opportunity of presenting his case. 
  • It may be noted that the mere fact that the foreign court did not follow the procedure of Indian courts will not invalidate a foreign Judgement on the ground of proceedings being opposed to natural justice. 
  • In the case of Sankaran v. Lakshmi (1974), the Supreme Court held that the expression natural justice relates to the irregularities in procedure rather than to the merits of the case. 
• (e) Foreign Judgement Obtained by Fraud 
  • It is a well settled principle of Private International Law that if foreign Judgements are obtained by fraud, it will not operate as res judicata. 
    • Fraud in any case, bearing on jurisdictional facts, vitiates all judicial acts. 
    • The fraud may be either fraud on the party invalidating a foreign Judgement in whose favor the Judgement is given or fraud on the court pronouncing the Judgement. 
  • In the case of Satya v. Teja Singh (1975), the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had misled the foreign court as to its having jurisdiction over the matter, although it could not have had the jurisdiction, the Judgement and decree was obtained by fraud and hence inconclusive. 
• (f) Foreign Judgement founded on Breach of Indian Law 
  • Section 13(f) does not require that the procedure of the foreign court should be identical with or similar to the procedure of the courts in India. 
• However, when a foreign Judgement is founded on a breach of any law in force in India, it would not be enforced in India.