1. This is the second Defendant's Chamber Summons for dismissal of the above Execution Application and for revocation of an order dated 8.12.2003 granting leave under order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed in Chamber Summons No.777 of 2003 taken out in the above execution application. The second Defendant has also sought the setting aside of the warrant of attachment dated 12.1.2004 and the warrant of sale dated 24.5.2004.

2. The High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Regional Court of First Instance passed in favour of the Plaintiff a judgment and decree dated 31.5.2002 for a sum of US$ 618,331.26 and interest thereon at the rate of 1% above the US prime rate from 18.1.2001 till payment and for costs. It is common ground that the decree has become final.

3. As stated above by an order dated 8.12.2003, passed in Chamber Summons No.777 of 2003, the learned Judge granted leave under order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge clarified that all the contentions of the judgment debtor were kept open to be considered in appropriate proceedings.

4. On 12.1.2004 a warrant of attachment was issued with respect to the said flat. The said flat thereafter stood attached in execution. The warrant of sale was issued on 24.5.2004.

5. Defendant No.2 had earlier filed Chamber Summons No.531 of 2005 for stay of the execution proceedings. I am informed that this was on the basis of bankruptcy proceedings against Defendant No.2 in the Singapore Court. An adinterim stay was granted on 20.4.2005. The Appeal Court reversed the order. The Supreme Court by an order dated 3.3.2006 issued notice and ordered that in the meanwhile the proceedings may continue but that the final sale document shall not be executed. I am informed that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court.

6. Mr.Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No.2, in support of the Chamber Summons raised two contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is not a reciprocating territory within Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Secondly, he submitted that in any event the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which passed the said decree is not a superior Court notified under Section 44A of the C. P. C. 7(A). Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :"

44A. Execution of decree passed by Courts in reciprocating territory:

(1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in (India) as if it had been passed by the District Court.

(2) Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a certificate from such superior court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this Section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.

(3) The provisions of Section 47 shall as from the filing of the certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13.

Explanation I:" Reciprocating territory" means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and "superior courts", with reference to any such territory, means such courts as may be specified in the said notification. Explanation II: "Decree" with reference to a superior Court means any decree or judgment of such court under which a sum of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges o