Judgment rendered not conclusive.

JUDGEMENT:- The second defendant in suit No.2598 of 1975 on the file of the High Court of Republic of Singapore against whom F.P.No.9 of 1976 has been filed on the file of the District Court, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam is the appellant herein.

2. The first respondent herein obtained a decree for a sum of $ 30,000, against the appellant herein and the second respondent in suit No.2598 of 1975 on the file of the High Court of Republic of Singapore on 20th October, 1975. The suit claim was based on an arrangement contained in a deed dated 3rd February, 1975. The first respondent-decree-holder filed E.P.9 of 1976, on the file of the District Court, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam, for recovery of Rs.1,09,840 by attachment and sale of the immoveable properties mentioned in the list attached to the execution petition. The second respondent herein, who was the first respondent in the execution petition before the Court below, remained ex parte. The second defendant, who was the second respondent in the execution petition alone resisted the said execution petition on the following grounds.

1. that the decree is not one passed on merits;

2. that the proceedings in which the judgment and decree were obtained were opposed to natural justice;

3. that the certificate of non-satisfaction by the decree-holder is defective and inadequate;

4. that there is no reciprocal arrangement under which Singapore decree can be executed in India;

5. that the exchange value is not correctly stated; and

6. that the decree sought to be executed is not one passed by the Judge of the High Court of Singapore, but one by the Deputy Registrar of that Court. All the said grounds of objection have been considered by the Court below and have been overruled. After overruling all the objections, the lower Court allowed the execution by attachment and sale of the immoveable property to proceed. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the findings of the Court below with reference to all the objections except objection No. 1. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the findings rendered by the Court below with reference to the other grounds apart from ground No. 1.

3. As already stated in ground No. 1, the appellant has contended that the decree is not one passed on merits and, therefore, it cannot be taken to be conclusive under Section 13 (b) C. P. C. and, therefore, the decree is inexecutable by the lower Court. According to Sec. 13 C. P. C., 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 among other things where it has not been given on the merits of the case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant as soon as summons were served in the suit, the first and second defendants, the appellant and the second respondent herein, appeared by counsel and affidavits were filed on behalf of the defendants for leave to defend. But as the leave to defend sought for by the defendants was not given and the Court passed a decree straightway, it was contended by the appellant before the Court below that the decision rendered in the suit by the Singapore High Court was not on merits and, therefore, the judgment cannot be taken to be conclusive under Section 13 (b) of the Civil Procedure Code, to sustain the execution petition filed by the decree-holder.

4. The first respondent, however, contended before the Court below that the judgment of the Singapore High Court was rendered after the respondents entered appearance through their counsel in pursuance of the summons and filed their affidavits as evidenced by Exs. B-1 to B.5, and, therefore, the decision of the Singapore High Court should be taken to be a judgment on merits. The Court below has held that as the judgment of the Singapore High Court was not an ex parte judgment, but a judgment rende