Foreign judgment on the merits and curable plaint-signing defect sustain the suit and enforceability of the decree.

A plaint signed by an attorney under a special power of attorney was held irregular because the authority was limited to one recovery matter and did not amount to a general power of attorney required by the court rules, but the defect was cured by the plaintiff's later signature and payment of costs, so the suit could proceed. On the foreign judgment issue, the Basra decree was treated as a judgment on the merits because the defendants had notice, were represented, sought only an adjournment, and the foreign court considered the materials before entering decree. The judgment was therefore conclusive and enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was properly signed by an attorney holding a special power of attorney only; (ii) Whether the foreign judgment was one given on the merits within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was properly signed by an attorney holding a special power of attorney only.

Analysis: The power of attorney was confined to acts connected with the recovery of the amount due in one particular matter and did not authorise the attorney generally to conduct the plaintiff's affairs. It therefore fell outside the class of general powers of attorney required by the Court's rules. The defect, however, was treated as an irregularity in procedure rather than a matter affecting jurisdiction or the merits, and the plaintiff was permitted to cure it by signing the plaint himself on payment of costs up to that stage.

Conclusion: The plaint was not properly signed by a general power of attorney holder, but the defect was cured by amendment and did not prevent the suit from proceeding.

Issue (ii): Whether the foreign judgment was one given on the merits within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: A foreign judgment is conclusive unless it falls within the statutory exception where it has not been given on the merits. The defendants had notice of the Basra proceedings, were represented by a pleader holding authority, and only sought an adjournment; no defence on the merits was raised or adjudicated. The foreign court examined the materials and entered decree after considering the plaintiff's case, so the controversy was directly adjudicated rather than disposed of as a mere penalty for default or non-compliance.

Conclusion: The Basra judgment was given on the merits and was conclusive against the defendants.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to rely on the foreign judgment, and the suit succeeded with costs as directed.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign ex parte decree is treated as a judgment on the merits when the defendant had notice and opportunity to defend, but no defence was raised and the court actually adjudicated the dispute on the evidence before it; a procedural defect in signing the plaint may be cured where it does not affect the merits or jurisdiction.

---