Foreign decree execution under Section 44-A depends on valid jurisdiction and a merits-based judgment; ex parte default decree failed both.

Singapore was a reciprocating territory when the decree was passed, so the foreign decree fell within Section 44-A CPC. However, execution in India still depended on the decree satisfying Section 13 and on the defendant being subject to the foreign court's jurisdiction. The respondent was not shown to have been resident in Singapore, to have personally appeared, or to have otherwise submitted to that forum, and the ex parte decree was passed without evidence or trial, so it was not on the merits. Execution was therefore correctly refused because the jurisdictional and merits requirements for enforcing a foreign decree were not met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Singapore was a reciprocating territory so that the foreign decree could be executed under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the respondent had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore High Court and whether the ex parte decree was a judgment on merits so as to be executable in India.

Issue (i): Whether Singapore was a reciprocating territory so that the foreign decree could be executed under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 44-A permits execution in India of decrees of superior courts of reciprocating territories notified by the Central Government. The notification in force when the decree was passed declared Singapore to be a reciprocating territory and the Singapore High Court to be a superior court. The later notification of 1968 superseded the earlier notification only after Singapore became a Republic, and did not affect the position as on the date of the decree.

Conclusion: Singapore was a reciprocating territory when the decree was passed, and the decree was within the scope of Section 44-A.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore High Court and whether the ex parte decree was a judgment on merits so as to be executable in India.

Analysis: A foreign court acquires jurisdiction only where the defendant is a subject or resident of that country, voluntarily appears, sues there as plaintiff, or otherwise agrees to submit to that forum. The respondent was neither resident in Singapore nor shown to have personally appeared or contracted to submit to its jurisdiction. The partnership materials did not establish that the power of attorney or earlier suits were on behalf of the respondent individually so as to bind him. Independently, the decree was passed after default of appearance without evidence or trial, and therefore lacked adjudication on merits. Under Section 13, a foreign judgment is conclusive only if rendered by a competent court and on the merits of the case; under Section 44-A(3), the judgment-debtor may resist execution by proving such defects.

Conclusion: The respondent had not submitted to the Singapore court's jurisdiction, and the decree was not given on merits; execution was therefore rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The foreign decree could not be executed in India because the respondent was not shown to be bound by the Singapore court's jurisdiction and the decree lacked a merits adjudication, so the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign decree is executable in India under Section 44-A only when the foreign court is competent and the decree satisfies the requirements of Section 13, including valid jurisdiction over the defendant and an adjudication on the merits.

---