SUPER GENERAL COMPANY Vs. SURESH THONIKKADAVU VEEDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the petitioner is against the order dated 16.11.2016 in E.P. No. 35 of 2014 passed by the District Court, Kasaragod. A foreign judgment alleged to have been passed by a three Judge Bench of Sharjah Federal Court of first instance in favour of the petitioner granting recovery of money against the respondent put in execution. The District Judge, on consideration of Ext.B1 passport and after hearing both the parties, found that the counter petitioner/ judgment debtor was not in Sharjah at the time when the proceedings were initiated as well as at the time when the judgment was pronounced and that no opportunity was given to the counter petitioner to submit his case and no notice was also served on him regarding the proceedings initiated. Consequently, the execution petition was dismissed by virtue of the impugned order dated 16.11.2016.

(2.) Heard Sri. Saji Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. D. Krishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) The enforceability of a foreign judgment/decree within the territory of India and the Court established within its territory are governed by Sections 13, 14 and 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sec. 13 deals with the requirements on which a foreign judgment could be treated as conclusive. A foreign judgment 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 litigation under the same title, except the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) to Sec. 13 CPC. The grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) are exceptions to general rule engrafted and embodied under Sec. 13 CPC. Sec. 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the presumption as to foreign judgments and the Court shall presume upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record, but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction. By its nature, the power given under Sec. 14 and its content would make the legal position clear that the presumption available under Sec. 14 is a rebuttable one.