Foreign decree execution under Section 44-A remains subject to Section 13 exceptions and competent jurisdiction limits.

The Bombay HC held that the words "as if" in Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure are a procedural device that applies Order XXI to the execution of foreign decrees, and do not deem the foreign decree to have been passed by the executing court. Section 44-A(3) still requires refusal of execution where the decree falls within any exception in Section 13. Because the decree was found to suffer from lack of competent jurisdiction under Section 13, it could not be enforced and execution was rightly refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the words "as if" in Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deem a foreign decree to have been passed by the executing court so as to make it a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, and whether execution can nevertheless be refused under the exceptions in Section 13.

Analysis: The words "as if" in Section 44-A were construed as a legislative device to apply the procedure in Order XXI to execution of foreign decrees, and not as a fiction converting such a decree into one passed by the executing court. Section 44-A(3) expressly requires the executing court to refuse execution where the decree falls within any exception in Section 13. Since the decree was held to fall within the exception relating to lack of competent jurisdiction, the decree could not be enforced.

Conclusion: The foreign decree was not treated as a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, and execution was rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The application for execution failed because the decree attracted the statutory bar against enforcement of foreign judgments falling within Section 13.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 44-A incorporates the procedure for execution of foreign decrees but does not deem such a decree to have been passed by the executing court, and execution must be refused where the decree falls within an exception under Section 13.

---