A foreign judgment obtained by default of appearance without trial or evidence is not a judgment on merits and cannot be executed under Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code.

KRISHNASWAMY REDDY, J. :- This appeal arises out of the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, dismissing the petition, E. P. No. 201 of 1967 filed for executing the decree in O. S. No. 598 of 1966 of Singapore High Court.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner who is the appellant filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of a very large sum on the basis of the alleged advances to the firm, of which he was a partner, in Singapore High Court. She obtained a decree against the respondent and sought to realise the decree amount of Rs. 3,90,432.01 with interest and costs, by attachment and sale of the immovable properties belonging to the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The execution Petition was filed under Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code since the decree of the High Court of Singapore is the decree of a reciprocating territory.

3. The Execution Petition was resisted by the respondent on the following grounds, (a) that there was no reciprocating agreement between India and Singapore after Singapore became an independent territory in August, 1965, and that, therefore, Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code will not apply to the decree passed by the Singapore High Court; (b) that he never submitted to the jurisdiction of Singapore High Court, that, therefore, Singapore High Court had no jurisdiction to pronounce judgment or pass decree against him and that therefore the judgment and decree was a nullity; and (c) that the judgment has been given on default of appearance without any trial or evidence and (d) since the decree was not one passed on merits, the decree cannot be executed under Section 44, Civil Procedure Code.

4. The learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, while overruling the grounds of objection raised by the respondent about the maintainability of the execution petition under Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code, accepted the other grounds of objection raised by the respondent and dismissed the Execution Petition.

5. It was not seriously disputed before us about the maintainability of the Execution Petition under Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code. But the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the other two grounds raised in the lower court that the decree passed by the Singapore High Court was not competent as the respondent had not submitted to its jurisdiction and that the decree could not be executed as it was not passed on merits.

6. We will first dispose of the contention that Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code will not apply as the territory of Singapore is not a reciprocating territory. The relevant provisions of Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code read thus :

"Section 44-A. (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.

.. .. .. .. . .. ..

Explanation. 1 : 'Reciprocating territory' means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and 'superior Courts', with reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification............."

7. The Central Government issued a Notification G. S. R. 1225 as provided in Explanation 1, on 17-06-1968. It reads thus :

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Explanation I of Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Law No. F-29 III/53-1, dated 1st September, 1955, the Central Government hereby declares the Republic of Singapore to be a reciprocating territory for the purpose of the said section and the High Court of the Republic of Singapore to be a Superior Court with reference to that territory."

8. The notification of 1st September, 1955, referred to