The execution of foreign decrees from reciprocating territories requires a swift process; however, exceptional circumstances may necessitate the framing of issues and consideration of evidence in determining the validity of the decree.

JUDGMENT

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Since the pleadings in the Petition are complete, the parties have requested for final hearing of the Petition. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2) By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged Order dated 3^rd November 2022 passed by the District Judge, Pune allowing application at Exhibit 20 filed by the Respondent-Judgment Debtor and framing issues with further liberty to the parties to lead evidence thereon.

3) Petitioner is a foreign Decree Holder and has filed execution proceedings for execution of the decree passed by Fujairah Civil Court, United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to the Petitioner, Fujairah Civil Court, UAE is notified by Government of India as reciprocating territory within the meaning of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) and that therefore the decree can be executed as if it is a domestic decree under Section 47 of the Code. Petitioners are accordingly aggrieved by the Court’s directions for framing of issues and for liberty to the parties to lead evidence.

4) Facts of the case as pleaded in the Petition are that Candica Industries FZC (Company) is an incorporated entity in Fujairah Free Zone, UAE, and engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in the confectionery under a trade license issued from the Free Trade Zone in the Emirate of Fujairah, UAE. The Company had taken readymade infrastructure and building in the year 2003 along with open land from Fujairah Free Zone Authority on lease for a period of five years in order to enable it to utilise the funds on the equipment and machinery rather than constructing the facilities. According to the Petitioner, the Company incurred substantial pre-operative expenses on account of delay and incurred operational losses. In view thereof, the directors of the Company decided to sell their stake in the Company at intrinsic value to the Respondent and requested him to run the business. The reserve price of AED 6.5 million was fixed for taking over of assets of the company by the Respondent. Petitioner No.1 was looking for opportunity to invest in the food processing business of the Company and offered to buy out Company’s business along with certain specified assets and liabilities of the company at the price of AED 41,72,362/-, which was accepted by the Respondent. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 19 July 2007 was executed between the Petitioners, Company and the Respondent. According to the Petitioners, it has complied with the obligations under the terms and conditions of the MOU and that the Respondent received sale consideration of AED 4,172,362/-. Petitioners claim that additional amount of AED 100,000/- was paid to the Company towards loan in respect of the leased warehouse, land and Company’s assets. According to the Petitioners, Respondent failed to fulfill obligations under the MOU, leading to losses to the Petitioners. Petitioners claim that Respondent went absconding in the year 2009.

5) Petitioners filed Suit No.241 of 2011 before the Fujairah Civil Court in April 2011 inter alia agai