Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 325
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor – Petitioner
Versus
Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.480 of 2026
Decided On : 17-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Naresh Sunkara, learned counsel.
For the Respondent: Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel.
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Execution of Decrees
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Section 13(b) - Decree on merits - An ex parte decree cannot be automatically presumed to be not on merits - The essential test is whether the court considered the material placed before it and adjudicated the claim based on evidence; if the decree is based on documentary evidence and expert analysis rather than merely the absence of a party, it is deemed passed on merits. (Paras 29, 30)
(C) Section 13(d) - Principles of natural justice - Service of summons through multiple modes, including email and publication in widely circulated newspapers, satisfies the requirements of natural justice - A party cannot claim a violation of natural justice if they fail to dispute the accuracy of the contact details used for service or provide evidence to challenge the findings of the foreign court. (Paras 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
A decree holder obtained a money decree from a court in a reciprocating territory following an accounting expert's report that revealed the embezzlement of funds by the judgment debtor. The decree holder sought to execute this decree in India. The judgment debtor challenged the execution, arguing that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction as he was not a resident of that territory, the decree was passed ex parte and not on merits, and there was a violation of natural justice due to improper service of summons.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the foreign judgment was based on a detailed analysis of financial transactions and applicable legal provisions, making it a judgment on merits. The evidence provided showed that summons were issued via email, court service, and newspaper publications. Furthermore, the judgment debtor failed to produce a passport or other documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of non-residence in the reciprocating territory.
Issues: Whether the foreign decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is therefore executable in India under Section 44A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the foreign decree was conclusive as it did not attract any exceptions under Section 13 CPC. It established that an ex parte decree is on merits if based on evidence, and service of summons via approved electronic and public means satisfies the principles of natural justice.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.
Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Sri Naresh Sunkara, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Sri K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in C.E.P.No.6 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District (Trial Court), wherein the execution petition filed by the Decree Holder under Order XXI Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for attachment of the schedule immovable property under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC for realization of the decretal amount by sale of the attached property under Order XXI Rules 64 to 66 of CPC, was allowed by the impugned order.
3. The main ground of challenge is as to whether the decree holder is entitled to enforce the judgment and decree passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah, Primary Court and whether the decree holder is entitled for attachment of the EP Schedule Properties.
4. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Trial Court.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the decree holder and the judgment debtor entered into an agreement to establish a company for the purpose of trading medical equipment in the free zone of the Emirate of Sharjah, wherein the decree holder will hold 90% of the company capital and the judgment debtor shall hold 10% of the company capital. Subsequently, both the decree holder and the judgment debtor entered into a Share Transfer Agreement dated 11.03.2022 transferring 90% of his share holding in ADICOMED in favour of the judgment debtor for an amount of 135 USD but the judgment debtor using his position in the company fraudulently transferred the funds of the company to his personal account, which are not related to the company and embezzled an amount of 10,79,299.50 AE, as such, the decree holder filed Urgent Case No.5712 of 2022 before the Sharjah Court for appointment of Accounting Expert to review the company account from 05.04.2020 to 11.03.2022, who filed his report on 10.11.2022 and held that certain funds were transferred from the account of the company to the personal account of the judgment debtor. Therefore, the decree holder filed commercial suit before the Federal Court of Sharjah to direct the judgment debtor to pay 9,71,369.55 AED with interest and same was decreed vide judgment dated 31.05.2023 directing the judgment debtor to pay 9,71,369.55 AED with interest @ 5% and to pay legal charges totaling to 34550 AED.
6. Since the judgment debtor failed to pay the said amount, the decree holder filed Enforcement Case before the Federal Court of Sharjah, Civil Enforcement Court vide Case No. SHCEXCICOMS2023/0005664 with a request to permit the decree holder to execute the decree outside the country and Federal Court vide order dated 14.05.2023 permitted the decree holder to execute the decree outside the territory of the country. As the Government of India vide Gazette Notification GSR 38 (E) dated 17.01.2020 declared the Court in United Arab Emirates to be a reciprocating territory, the decree passed by the UAE Court can be executed in India, therefore, the execution proceedings were filed.
7. The judgment debtor filed a counter-affidavit in the EP under Section 47 of CPC read with Section 13 and 44 A of CPC raising an objection that the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah, Primary Court, is liable to be refused for execution under the provisions of Section 44-A read with Section 13 of CPC. The decree holder is a citizen of United States of America and the judgment debtor is citizen of India and has never resided in the United Arab Emirates at any time, likewise, the decree holder had no substantive presence within UAE. Accordingly, the Federal Court of Sharjah lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entert
