Isabella Mariam

The Bombay High Court Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a writ petition challenging a Pune District Court order that framed issues and permitted evidence in execution of a money decree passed by a court in the United Arab Emirates, sought to be enforced in India by the foreign decree holders against the judgment debtor. The High Court held that, while the inquiry into whether a foreign decree from a reciprocating territory falls within the statutory exceptions is ordinarily summary and does not, by itself, require issue-framing or a trial-like process, an executing court may adopt those measures in exceptional cases. Finding such exceptional circumstances on the objections raised, the Court declined interference and requested the executing court to conclude the exercise expeditiously, preferably within three months.

The petitioners, foreign decree holders, initiated execution proceedings in India seeking enforcement of a money decree passed by the Fujairah Civil Court, UAE. The decree directed the respondent to pay specified amounts with interest and attorney’s fees. Initially, an execution application under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed when the UAE was not a notified reciprocating territory, resulting in dismissal. The petitioners thereafter filed a suit on the foreign judgment, which was dismissed for non-removal of office objections. Following notification of the UAE as a reciprocating territory, fresh execution proceedings were instituted.

Also Read: Unreasoned Bail Orders Impermissible: Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Bail In Dowry Death Case, Calls It “One Of The Most Shocking And Disappointing Orders

The respondent-judgment debtor filed applications raising objections under Sections 13 and 47 of the Code and sought framing of issues and permission to lead evidence. The District Judge allowed the application, framed issues including fraud, natural justice, limitation, and maintainability, and granted liberty to lead evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged this order contending that such framing of issues defeats the summary nature of proceedings under Section 44A.

The Court observed that “Thus, there is a vital distinction between the decree passed by the foreign court in non-reciprocating territory and a decree passed by the foreign court in reciprocating territory.”

It stated that “Ordinarily, it is not necessary in every case that issues are framed and evidence is led for conduct of inquiry into circumstances enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the Code. This is because the legislative object is to ensure swifter and faster execution of the decree passed by the foreign court in reciprocating territory.”

The Court recorded that “Therefore, in every case, it is not mandatory that the issues are framed and evidence is directed to be led for conducting a full-fledged trial into existence of circumstances enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the Code when District Court executes a decree made by foreign court in reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code.”

Referring to precedent, the Court noted that “Framing of issue by the Executing Court would at best be a matter of prudence but not a rule.”

It further recorded the Supreme Court’s direction that “The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method…”

On the facts, the Court observed that “The Executing Court has therefore noted exceptional circumstances for adopting the route of framing of issues.” It stated that “In the present case, the judgment-debtor has created some doubts in the mind of the Executing Court about existence of exceptions specified in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of Section 13 of the Code…”

The Court recorded that “It has recorded existence of exceptional circumstances in the present case in the impugned order for taking the exceptional measures of framing of issues and leading of evidence.”

Also Read: 'Can't Turn Nelson's Eye To Minor Victim's Ordeal; Convict's Age No Ground For Leniency': Bombay High Court Upholds Sentence Of 83 Yr-Old Rape Convict

The Court stated, “I therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned District Judge is requested to render findings on the issue framed in an expeditious manner preferably within a period of 3 months. Both the sides to cooperate with the Learned District Judge by leading evidence in a timely manner. All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open to be decided by the Executing Court. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar with Mr. Aakash Shinaa i/b M/s. Juris Corp

For the Respondents: Mr. Rohan Kelkar with Ms. Smruti Kanade i/b M/s. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah

Case Title: Elis Jane Quinlan and Ors. v. Naveen Kumar Seth
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AS:6946
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14283 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne