Foreign judgments from reciprocating territories are executable in India, including costs and interest on costs, unless a Section 13 exception applies.

A reasoned foreign judgment from a reciprocating territory, passed after notice and participation of both sides, was treated as conclusive under Section 13 CPC because it did not fall within any statutory exception and was on merits. The Court held that such a foreign order could be executed in India under Section 44A, and that the expression decree or judgment was broad enough to cover the order. It further held that costs and interest on costs were not excluded by Explanation 2 to Section 44A, as they were part of the enforceable money obligation and not taxes, fines, penalties, or similar charges. Deletion of Section 35(3) did not prevent enforcement of foreign interest on costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the foreign order fell within any exception to conclusiveness under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the foreign order amounted to a decree or judgment executable in India under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. (iii) Whether the decree for costs was excluded by Explanation 2 to Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. (iv) Whether interest on costs was excluded by Explanation 2 to Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. (v) Whether interest on costs could be executed in India despite deletion of Section 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the foreign order fell within any exception to conclusiveness under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The order was passed after notice, participation of both sides, and a reasoned determination of the jurisdictional objection. A foreign judgment is conclusive where it is on merits and does not attract any of the statutory exceptions. The Court also applied the presumption of competence under Section 14 and held that the appellant could not challenge execution after having accepted the order and sought time to comply.

Conclusion: The foreign order was conclusive and did not fall within any exception to Section 13.

Issue (ii): Whether the foreign order amounted to a decree or judgment executable in India under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Section 44A permits execution of decrees and judgments from superior Courts of reciprocating territories. The Court held that the terms decree, judgment, and order in the Code are broad enough to include such an order, and that a reasoned order conclusively determining jurisdiction and costs qualifies for execution under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The foreign order was executable in India under Section 44A.

Issue (iii): Whether the decree for costs was excluded by Explanation 2 to Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Costs were treated as reimbursement of litigation expenses and not as taxes, fines, penalties, or charges of a like nature. The Court rejected the attempt to equate quantified costs with the exclusions in Explanation 2 and held that compensatory costs under Indian law did not bar enforcement of the foreign costs order.

Conclusion: The decree for costs was not hit by Explanation 2 to Section 44A.

Issue (iv): Whether interest on costs was excluded by Explanation 2 to Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Interest on costs was treated as part of the enforceable money obligation arising from the foreign judgment. The Court held that the exclusion in Explanation 2 did not cover such interest and that the foreign right to interest could be recognised and implemented in India.

Conclusion: Interest on costs was not excluded by Explanation 2 to Section 44A.

Issue (v): Whether interest on costs could be executed in India despite deletion of Section 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The Court held that deletion of the provision empowering Indian courts to grant interest on costs did not amount to a prohibition against enforcing a foreign judgment carrying such interest. The substantive right created by the foreign judgment could be executed, and domestic procedural omission did not defeat enforcement.

Conclusion: Interest on costs could be executed in India notwithstanding deletion of Section 35(3).

Final Conclusion: The foreign order was held to be conclusive, executable, and enforceable in India together with costs and interest on costs, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasoned foreign judgment or order from a reciprocating territory that conclusively determines a matter on merits and awards a sum of money, including costs and interest on costs, is executable in India unless it falls within a specific statutory exception.

---