Ex parte foreign decrees can be judgments on the merits, and jurisdiction is presumed unless the defendant disproves it.

An ex parte foreign decree is treated as a judgment on the merits under Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the foreign court applies its mind to the claim and does not merely impose default as a penalty. A certified copy of a foreign judgment carries a presumption under Section 14 that the judgment was pronounced by a competent court, so jurisdiction is presumed unless the defendant pleads and proves lack of jurisdiction. The text also notes that the lower courts erred by placing the burden on the plaintiff to prove the defendant's presence within the foreign jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an ex parte foreign decree, passed after the defendant did not contest the suit, was a judgment on the merits of the case within the meaning of Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) Whether, on production of a certified copy of a foreign judgment, the Court must presume competence and jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the burden then lying on the defendant to disprove jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether an ex parte foreign decree, passed after the defendant did not contest the suit, was a judgment on the merits of the case within the meaning of Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The decree was not treated as a penalty for default alone. The foreign Court took account of the registered character of the document sued on and the defendant's failure to contest, and on that basis reached a conclusion as to the truth of the claim. A judgment is not excluded from the category of one on the merits merely because it is ex parte; it is excluded only where the Court does not consider the matters necessary for decision and decides the case solely by way of penalty for default.

Conclusion: The decree was a judgment on the merits and was not hit by Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether, on production of a certified copy of a foreign judgment, the Court must presume competence and jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the burden then lying on the defendant to disprove jurisdiction.

Analysis: A certified copy of a foreign judgment carries a statutory presumption that it was pronounced by a competent Court. In such a suit, the presumption of jurisdiction operates unless the contrary is proved, and the defendant must plead and establish facts showing that the foreign Court lacked jurisdiction over him. The findings of the Courts below proceeded on an incorrect view by requiring the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was within the foreign jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 14 applied, and the burden of disproving foreign jurisdiction lay on the defendant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not finally determined on the factual issue of jurisdiction and residence; the matter was sent back for findings on the defendant's status and residence in Rampur State, with liberty to adduce further evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A certified foreign judgment is presumed to have been pronounced by a competent Court, and an ex parte decree is on the merits if the Court has applied its mind to the claim rather than deciding purely by way of penalty for default.

---