Foreign decree enforcement depends on whether summary-procedure judgment still qualifies as a judgment on merits.

A foreign decree can be executed in India under section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure if it qualifies as a judgment on merits under section 13(b). Where the foreign court followed its own summary procedure, but the defendant was personally served, acknowledged service, gave notice of intention to defend, and leave to defend was refused before judgment was entered, the decree is treated as one on merits. Mere use of a summary procedure does not by itself defeat enforceability, especially when no procedural violation is shown and the statutory presumptions under the Evidence Act are not displaced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the foreign decree sought to be executed was a judgment on merits within the meaning of section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore executable under section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The execution application was supported by the certified copy of the foreign judgment and the certificate of unsatisfied decree required by section 44A. The judgment debtor's sole substantive objection was that the foreign decree had been passed under a summary procedure and was therefore not a judgment on merits. The Court examined the procedure under Order 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1965, which permits service of summons, filing of affidavit evidence, an opportunity to defend, and entry of judgment after the defendant fails to obtain leave or the application for leave is refused. The Court distinguished cases where the merits were never investigated at all from cases where the foreign court followed its own summary procedure and adjudicated after service, appearance, and consideration of the claim. The evidence on record showed personal service, acknowledgment of service, notice of intention to defend, refusal of leave, and entry of judgment in accordance with the foreign procedure. The judgment debtor did not establish any procedural violation or any basis to displace the statutory presumptions under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The foreign decree was held to be a judgment on merits, the objection under section 13(b) failed, and the decree was executable under section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---