(1.) [After stating facts his Lordship continued.] These being the facts the first question for consideration is whether the Kathore Mahal Court was a Court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In this connection it is material to bear in mind that the jurisdiction of the Kathore Mahal Court for the purpose of passing a decree enforceable in the territory of H. H. the Gaekwar of Baroda is different from the jurisdiction contemplated by Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. That Court may have jurisdiction, if a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction to pass a decree. But when the defendant did not owe any allegiance to H. H. the Gaekwar of Baroda and was not a resident within the jurisdiction of the local Court on the date of the suit, different considerations arise in respect of the enforceability of the decree in a foreign territory. Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code provides : 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.
(2.) ON production of a certified copy of a foreign judgment it is obligatory on the Court therefore to presume that the Court passing the decree was of competent jurisdiction. It is open to the opponent however to show, either by following the record itself, that there was want of jurisdiction, or that the presumption might be displaced by evidence led on the point. Both sides have led evidence. In my opinion the relevant facts proved are as follows : 1. That the defendant is a British Indian subject. 2. That at no time material to the litigation he had resided within the territories of H. H. the Gaekwar.
(3.) THAT at the date of the suit therefore there was no agent of the defendant living within the jurisdiction of the local Court.