2026 Supreme(Bom) 446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Elis Jane Quinlan and Others – Appellants
Versus
Naveen Kumar Seth, Director of Candica Industries – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14283 of 2023
Decided On : 10-02-2026

Execution under CPC Section 44A for reciprocating territory decrees involves summary Section 13 inquiry; framing issues and evidence allowed only in exceptional circumstances like doubts on service, fraud, natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 44A, 13, 47 - Execution of decrees passed by courts in reciprocating territory - Such decrees executable directly as domestic decrees - Provisions of Section 47 apply - Executing court to refuse execution if satisfied decree falls within exceptions in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 - Inquiry into such exceptions is summary, based on pleadings, proceedings and record, not full-fledged trial by framing issues and leading evidence routinely - Framing issues and permitting evidence permissible only in exceptional circumstances where complex facts like service, natural justice violation or fraud cannot be resolved expeditiously otherwise. (Paras 16, 23-30, 37)

(B) Section 14 - Presumption that foreign judgment pronounced by court of competent jurisdiction unless contrary appears on record or displaced by proof of want of jurisdiction. (Para 21)

(C) Article 227 of Constitution - No interference with executing court's order framing issues in exceptional case where prima facie doubts exist on service at known address, suppression raising fraud, and ex parte nature questioning merits and natural justice. (Paras 38-42)

Facts of the case:
Decree holders obtained foreign decree holding judgment debtor liable for amount with interest; decree certified unsatisfied - Initial execution dismissed as territory not reciprocating then - Suit on decree dismissed for office objections - Fresh execution filed post-notification of reciprocating territory - Judgment debtor objected under Section 13 claiming no merits adjudication, natural justice breach due to improper service despite known address, fraud by suppression - Executing court framed issues on these and limitation, permitted evidence.

Findings of Court:
Executing court noted exceptional circumstances from record showing known address not used for service, suppression allegations, ex parte default judgment relying on expert report without full evidence - Directed expeditious adjudication within 90 days; High Court upheld but mandated 3 months timeline.

Issues: Whether in execution under Section 44A, executing court can frame issues and direct parties to lead evidence while inquiring into Section 13 exceptions; existence of exceptional circumstances justifying same.

Ratio Decidendi: Legislative intent of Section 44A for swift execution mandates summary Section 13 inquiry without routine full trial; however, executing court may frame issues and allow evidence prudently in rare exceptional cases of complex factual disputes going to root like service suppression, fraud and natural justice, as burden on judgment debtor to prove exceptions but record raises prima facie doubts requiring deeper probe.

Result: Writ petition dismissed. No interference with impugned order; executing court directed to render findings expeditiously within 3 months. Rule discharged. No costs.