The principle of constructive res judicata applies to objections raised after the issuance of warrants of attachment in execution proceedings.

( 1 ) THE decree-holder herein obtained a foreign judgment from the Supreme Court of Hong Kong on September 8, 1994. Pursuant thereto the decree-holder filed an execution petition in this Court for execution of the aforesaid foreign judgment as provided for under section 44-A and Order XXI 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Along with the said execution petition a certified copy of the judgment dated August 12, 1994 was annexed as Annexure `a wherein it was recorded as follows:-

". . . . . . , IT IS THIS DAY ADJUDGED that the Defendants do pay the Plaintiff the sum of US$109,556. 37 or its equivalent in Hong Kong Dollars at the time of payment together with interest thereon at the rate of 9. 5% per annum from the 8th September, 1992 to the date hereof and thereafter at judgement rate until payment in full and HK$1,810. 00 as fixed costs. "

( 2 ) THE said petition was filed in this Court on May 28, 1997. On filing of the said application, this court by order dated July 7, 1997 directed for issuance of notice to the judgment debtors. The said notice was served on the judgment debtors and accordingly counsel for the judgment debtors entered appearance on the subsequent date, i. e. , on October 20, 1997, and prayed for time. On August 28, 1998 it was recorded by this Court that reply was still not filed. The judgment debtors again sought time to file reply and the court allowed the prayer and ordered that the reply be filed within two weeks subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/ -. Even in spite of the said order, neither the cost was paid nor the reply was filed. Even on the subsequent date and finally on January 11, 1999 last opportunity was granted to the judgment debtors to file reply. Still no reply was filed by the judgment debtors. This court passed an order on December 2, 1999 directing for issuance of warrant of attachment against the properties shown in the list annexed with the petition which was made returnable by February 18, 2000. On February 18, 2000, it was, however, recorded by this Court that despite repeated opportunities neither the reply was filed nor the cost imposed on May 22, 1998 was paid but even in spite of the said position, at request a last opportunity was given to file reply and pay costs making it clear that no further time would be granted. It was also observed that in case either the cost was not paid or reply was not filed within the time granted by the court, the matter would be proceeded with in the absence of reply. It was recorded that though the warrant of attachment which was issued was executed, but a report was received that the fixed deposit receipt numbers did not appear to be correct. Again a fresh warrant of attachment was issued attaching the properties of the fixed deposit receipts in terms of the said order. It was also recorded that under section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree passed by the superior courts of any reciprocating territory could be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court and that the `reciprocating territory had been defined to mean any country or territory outside India which the Central Government might, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of that section. It was further observed that no such notification had been placed on record. Time was granted to place the same on record. Thereafter the warrants of attachment issued by this Court were also executed. The judgment debtors filed a reply/objection on September 20, 2000 taking up various pleas in the said objection contending inter alia that the foreign judgment is not conclusive and the same was passed ex parte and is a non-speaking ex parte judgment and is also not pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, another application registered as E. A. No. 233/2002 was filed by the judgment debtors on May 13, 2002 seeking for amendment of the reply which was filed by the judgm