Foreign State immunity under civil procedure law requires Central Government consent before a suit against a recognised head can proceed.

Sections 83 to 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure form a connected scheme on suits by and against foreign States. Section 86(1) imposes a statutory bar on suits against a foreign State's recognised head unless the Central Government consents, and the expression "Ruler of a foreign State" was read to include the recognised head of any foreign State, whether monarchical or republican. The statutory protection was treated as a legislative modification of sovereign immunity, so municipal courts must apply the consent requirement directly and need not rely on international law immunity. In the absence of Central Government consent, the suit could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit against a foreign State and its head is barred by section 86(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the absence of consent of the Central Government, and whether the doctrine of international law immunity can override that statutory bar.

Analysis: Sections 83 to 87B of the Code form a connected scheme dealing with suits by and against foreign States and their Rulers. Section 84 recognises a foreign State's capacity to sue, while section 86(1) imposes a corresponding limitation on suits against the Ruler of a foreign State, subject to consent of the Central Government. Reading sections 84, 86, 87 and 87A together, the expression "Ruler of a foreign State" was held to include the recognised head of any foreign State, regardless of whether the State is monarchical or republican. The statutory protection was treated as a legislative modification of the broader doctrine of sovereign immunity, so that where section 86(1) applies, the municipal court must give effect to the statutory requirement of consent and there is no need to resort to international law immunity.

Conclusion: Section 86(1) applies to the suit and, because no consent of the Central Government was obtained, the suit could not be entertained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory bar under section 86(1) operated against the suit, and the dismissal of the suit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign State and its recognised head fall within section 86(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a suit against them cannot be maintained without the consent of the Central Government; the statutory scheme governs the field and limits resort to international law immunity.

---