IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P.No.616 of 2025 Abdul Salim Ali Kunju ... Petitioner Vs.

Lakshmi Narayanan Murthy ... Respondent Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to number the Execution Petition which is e-filed on 10.07.2024 and given filing number as ATN20230003618C202400002 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kanchipuram.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran

O R D E R

Challenging the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram, dated 19.09.2024, returning the Execution Petition which is given filing number as ATN20230003618C202400002, filed by the petitioner, to enforce a foreign decree, and to number the said Execution Petition, the present revision has been filed.

2.The petitioner has filed the Execution Petition to enforce the decree passed by the Dubai Court of First Instance, dated 17.08.2022. The decree passed the said Court is as follows :

“Having reviewed the above-mentioned digital file and examining the claim contained therein, where it was found that the conditions of the payment order and notification of payment are fulfilled in accordance with the requirements of the regulations of the Civil Procedures Code, the court ruled in a Commercial Article : to oblige the defendants to pay the plaintiff an amount of AED 650,000 (six hundred and fifty thousand dirhams) with legal interest at the rate of 5% from the date of claim until full payment, and to pay fees, expenses and five hundred dirhams for attorney fees. The court rejected the expeditious execution.”

3.The above decree makes it clear that the Dubai Court has also rejected the expeditious execution, which is reflected in the same decree. When the petitioner sought to execute the decree as against the immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of the Execution Court, the Execution Court has returned the Execution Petition on the following grounds :

“Heard returned. Whether the decree enclosed herewith is passed by the superior court reciprocation territory are not to be mentioned. If the decree has been passed by the superior court necessary certificate from such superior court stating the extent at provision u/s.44(A)(2) to be enclosed. Whether the reciprocation territory comes under the purview of the central government officer goatee declare has not to be stated. All other defects to be complied with. Time one month.”

4.Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

5.Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, as far as the query raised by the Execution Court as to whether the Court which passed the decree is a superior Court is concerned, there is a notification already in this regard. The Court which passed the decree falls within the category of superior Court. As far as the Certificate from such superior Court as per the provisions of Sub-Clause (2) of Section 44A of Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it is his contention that no such certificate is issued normally in United Arab Emirates. Except United Kingdom, no such separate certificate is being issued in other countries. When the decree itself indicates that the Court rejected expeditious execution, it means, according to him, the Execution Petition has to be filed where the immovable property situate. It is his further contention that the Full Bench of this Court in Sheik Ali v. Sheik Mohammed reported in (1966) 2 MLJ 346, has held that Sub-Section (1) of Section 44A does not require the filing of a non-satisfaction certificate as a condition for the District Court to assume jurisdiction. According to him, the said certificate is not necessary to maintain the Execution Petition. He has also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited reported in (2020) 17 SCC 798, wherein, the Hon'b