Framing Of Issues Not Mandatory While Executing Foreign Decrees From Reciprocating Territories U/S 44A CPC: Bombay High Court

The Court clarified that objections raised under Section 13 of the Code do not automatically require framing of issues or recording of oral evidence in every case.

The Court was hearing proceedings arising out of an execution application filed to enforce a foreign decree passed by a court situated in a reciprocating territory. The judgment-debtor resisted execution by invoking statutory exceptions under Section 13 of the Code, following which the executing court directed framing of issues and recording of evidence.

A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Marne, examining the statutory framework, observed: “Ordinarily, it is not necessary in every case that issues are framed and evidence is led for conduct of inquiry into circumstances enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the Code. This is because the legislative object is to ensure swifter and faster execution of the decree passed by the foreign court in reciprocating territory. If in every case, framing of issues and leading of evidence is made mandatory for the District Court exercising execution powers under Section 44A of the Code, the same would bring the decree passed by the foreign court in reciprocating territory as if it is a decree passed by a foreign court in nonreciprocating territory”.

Background

The decree-holder sought execution in India of a decree passed by a foreign court situated in a reciprocating territory. The judgment-debtor resisted execution by invoking the grounds under Section 13 of the CPC, contending that the decree suffered from statutory infirmities.

The executing court framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence to determine whether the decree fell within the exceptions contained in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13. This order was challenged on the ground that such a procedure undermined the legislative intent behind Section 44A, which contemplates a summary mechanism distinct from suits based on decrees from non-reciprocating territories.

Court’s Observation

The High Court began by examining the statutory framework governing the execution of foreign decrees under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 13. The Court observed that Section 44A creates a special mechanism permitting decrees passed by superior courts of reciprocating territories to be executed in India as if they were decrees of a domestic court. This statutory scheme reflects a legislative intent to streamline enforcement while preserving limited safeguards under Section 13.

The Bench clarified that the grounds enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13, including want of jurisdiction, absence of merits adjudication, fraud, breach of natural justice, or contravention of Indian law, remain available to a judgment-debtor resisting execution. However, the inquiry into such objections is not intended to replicate a full civil trial. The statutory design contemplates a summary evaluation sufficient to determine whether any of the exceptions are prima facie attracted.

The Court emphasised that treating Section 44A execution proceedings as requiring mandatory framing of issues and recording of oral evidence in every case would defeat the legislative distinction between decrees from reciprocating and non-reciprocating territories. The former are granted expedited enforceability precisely to avoid duplication of adjudicatory processes already undertaken by a competent foreign court.

Addressing the role of the executing court, the Bench observed that its jurisdiction is supervisory and limited to examining whether statutory conditions for recognition are satisfied. The executing court is not expected to reopen the merits of the foreign judgment or conduct a de novo adjudication. The burden lies on the judgment-debtor to substantiate the applicability of any Section 13 exception with credible material.

The Court noted that in many cases, objections under Section 13 can be resolved based on the pleadings, documentary records, and the decree itself. Only where complex factual disputes arise, incapable of determination through a summary process, may the executing court consider adopting a more elaborate inquiry. Even then, such a departure must remain proportionate and confined to resolving the specific statutory objection.

The Bench rejected the proposition that framing of issues is an automatic procedural requirement. It held that execution under Section 44A is not equivalent to instituting a civil suit. The procedural flexibility inherent in execution jurisdiction allows the court to tailor the inquiry to the nature of objections raised, ensuring efficiency without sacrificing fairness.

The Court further observed that the legislative objective underlying Section 44A is to promote certainty and reciprocity in cross-border enforcement of judgments. Imposing uniform trial-like procedures would undermine this objective and place decrees from reciprocating territories on the same footing as those requiring independent adjudication, contrary to statutory intent.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Bench found that the executing court mechanically directed the framing of issues and recording of evidence without assessing whether such measures were warranted by the objections raised. This approach expanded the scope of execution beyond statutory limits and diluted the summary character of the proceeding.

Conclusion

Holding that the executing court erred in routinely directing framing of issues and leading of evidence, the High Court ruled that execution of a foreign decree from a reciprocating territory must ordinarily proceed through a summary inquiry limited to Section 13 objections. The impugned order was set aside, and the executing court was directed to reconsider the objections in accordance with the statutory scheme.

Cause Title: Elis Jane Quinlan v. Naveen Kumar Seth

Appearances

Petitioners: Shrey Fatterpekar with Aakash Shinaa, instructed by M/s. Juris Corp.

Respondent: Rohan Kelkar with Smruti Kanade, instructed by M/s. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah.

Click here to read/download Judgment