The executing court cannot revisit its own prior decisions unless new evidence emerges; principles of res judicata prevent re-litigation of settled matters.

ORDER :

V. SUJATHA, J.

Civil Revision Petition No.1212 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in E.A.No.1 of 2025 in E.P.No.21 of 2020 in CFI No.24 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, whereby, the Executing Court allowed the said application filed Under Section 47 of C.P.C. holding that the decree passed by the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts in CFI No.24 of 2019 dated 05.09.2019 and re-issued on 29.03.2020 is not maintainable and un-executable.

2) Civil Revision Petition No.1206 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in E.P.No.21 of 2020 in CFI No.24 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, whereby, the Executing Court raised the attachment order of Execution Petition schedule properties effected on 04.02.2021.

3) Since the petitioner and the respondent in both the revision petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in these revisions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide these revision petitions by way of a common order.

4) The petitioner herein is M/s.Transcom DMCC, Dubai, UAE, represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder – Mohammed Nasir Ahmed. The case of the petitioner is that it has sold/supplied the respondent Company 10,000/- metric tons of Egyptian Rock Phosphate and 22,000 metric tons of Bright Yellow Crude Sulphur in January and February 2016 respectively under sale and purchase agreements dated 04.01.2016 and 29.02.2016 respectively. Despite specific timelines for payment, the respondent defaulted in its payment obligation and total amount outstanding payable to the petitioner under the agreements accrued to US$ 3,138,000/- which is the initial outstanding liability. After elaborate deliberations and discussions, the respondent admitted its liability and agreed to settle the outstanding liability, and in furtherance of the same, the parties executed a settlement agreement along with a deed of acknowledgment dated 10.05.2017 in favour of the petitioner. As per the terms of the settlement agreement, the respondent agreed to the jurisdiction of Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (for short"DIFC") in case any dispute arises in terms of the settlement agreement. Subsequently, the respondent made some payments between 06.05.2017 and 03.04.2019 and after deducting the same, there was still an outstanding liability of US$ 2,481,035/-, as such the petitioner was constrained to file claim petition for US$2,481,035/- before DIFC Courts registered CFI 024 2019 as per the jurisdiction agreed upon in the settlement agreement along with a deed of acknowledgment dated 10.05.2017.

5) It is the further case of the petitioner that despite service of summons as per DIFC’s RDC Rules, the respondent had not evinced any interest to participate in the proceedings, and did not appear before the DIFC Court and remained ex parte. The DIFC after following due procedure prescribed in RDC Rules 2014, basing on the evidence lead by the petitioner allowed the claim of the petitioner as against the respondent and passed a decree on 05.09.2019 along with cost certificate dated 12.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner got issued an e-mail for enforcement to the respondent on 13.10.2019 seeking payment of total amount of US$ 2,538,