JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

1. The respondent moved an application under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking execution of a foreign judgment against the present petitioner (Judgment Debtor). The petitioner filed objections to the execution petition. Learned Executing Court dismissed the objections on 24.04.2023. Aggrieved, the Judgment Debtor (JD) has instituted the instant revision petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter according to their status before the leaned Trial Court.

2. Facts

2(i) The respondent-DH filed an execution petition on 23.10.2021. This execution petition under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC was for enforcement of a judgment and decree dated 10.04.2021 passed by learned Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance. The Decree Holder’s case was that his suit had been decreed on 10.04.2021 by the learned Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance to the tune of Rs. 66,21,196/-. The decree, therefore, was required to be executed by recovering the decretal amount by attachment of moveable and immoveable property of the JD.

2(ii) The judgment debtor-JD filed objections to the execution petition that :- (i) The foreign judgment in question is not legally executable against the JD (ii) The DH had not suffered any kind of monetary loss because of any willful act of the JD ; (iii) The DH had actually forged the two post dated cheques mentioned in the execution petition & (iv) The cheques in question were not dishonoured because of any malafide intention of the JD.

2(iii) Learned Executing Court considered the pleadings and submissions made for the parties. After thorough consideration of the matter, the objections of the JD were turned down on 24.04.2023. It is in the aforesaid background that the JD has assailed the order dated 24.04.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/JD has raised following points for assailing the order dated 24.04.2023 :-

(i) The foreign decree in question was not passed on the merits of the matter, hence was not executable. Principles of natural justice were violated in passing of the foreign decree, therefore, the decree could not have been executed.

(ii) The execution petition filed by the DH was not in consonance with the provisions of CPC inasmuch as the certified copy of the judgment and decree had not been filed by the DH and also different dates of pronouncement of the judgment figured in the documents enclosed by the decree holder.

4. Consideration

I have heard learned counsel for the JD (petitioner) as also learned Senior counsel for the DH (respondent) on the above points at length. To avoid repetition, the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties are being considered & discussed hereinafter :-

4(i) Since questions have been raised for the JD (petitioner) about the executability of foreign decree in question, it would be appropriate to first refer to relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4(i)(a) Section 44A of the CPC provides for execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory as under :-

“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 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 Dis