A.M. Shaffique, J.

This original petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.4.2015 in EP.No.57/2011. The execution petition was filed by the respondent herein for executing a foreign judgment. Exts.P4 to P7 are the orders passed by the Superior Court of Justice at Ontario, Canada. When the execution petition was filed, the petitioner had raised certain objections including the maintainability of execution petition. However without considering the same, the Family Court, Thrissur proceeded to consider whether the foreign judgment is executable and formed an opinion that the judgment debtor had transferred certain funds while the decree was in force with an intention to defeat the payment of the amount due to the decree holder and accordingly directed arrest warrant to be issued against the judgment debtor.

2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the documents produced by the respondent herein does not amount to a foreign judgment which can be executed before a Court in India. The primary contention raised is that the parties are foreign nationals and the direction by the Canada Court can only be executed at Canada and not in India. Secondly it is contended that it is an ex parte order which is not decided on merits and cannot be executed before this Court in terms of Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also contended that the Family Courts have no jurisdiction to execute such an order, only a District Court having civil jurisdiction can execute, if at all it is executable. The Family Courts are formed under the Family Courts Act and its jurisdiction is confined under Section 18 of the Act which did not include execution of foreign judgments. Further it is contended that, as per Section 44 A of the Code of Civil Procedure a decree of foreign court can be executed only if certified copy of decree of any of the Superior Court of any reciprocating territory has been filed before the District Court. There is no material to indicate that Canada is a reciprocating territory which would enable the said foreign judgment to be enforced and executed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Lakshmi Priya Seshan v. Shankar Guhadas (2013 (4) KLT 362) and the Apex Court judgment in International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd. (2001 (5) SCC 265) to contend for the position that an ex parte foreign judgment passed without discussion of any oral or documentary evidence, is not the judgment as provided under Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore cannot be executed by the District Court.

Section 13 (b) reads as under:

13. When foreign judgment not conclusive:- A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except:-

(a) xxxx xxxx

(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case.

A perusal of Exts.P5 to P7 would show that it is an ex parte order and therefore even assuming it is a foreign judgment, since it is passed ex parte and therefore Section 13(b) applies to the fact situation and therefore such a decree is not executable in India. Even otherwise as per Section 44 A of the Code of Civil Procedure what is to be produced before the District Court for execution is the certified copy of the decree of any of the Superior Court in any reciprocating territory. Section 44 A reads as under:

44-A. Execution of decrees 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 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