Foreign decree executable where jurisdiction, merits, and fairness were established; objections based on fraud and procedure failed.

A foreign decree is executable where the foreign court had competent jurisdiction over a resident defendant who was served with summons and expressly submitted to that forum by written consent. The decree was treated as a judgment on merits because it arose from a real dispute and not from mere default. Allegations of breach of natural justice and fraud failed for want of particulars and evidence, and the presumption of fair foreign procedure was not displaced. The objection based on non-certification of the decree copy was also rejected as it was not raised before the executing court. The decree was therefore held executable, and the challenge to its execution failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the foreign Court had competent jurisdiction to pass the decree; (ii) whether the foreign decree was not on merits and so fell within the statutory exception; (iii) whether the decree was vitiated by breach of natural justice or fraud; and (iv) whether the requirements for execution of the foreign decree under the Code were not satisfied.

Issue (i): whether the foreign Court had competent jurisdiction to pass the decree.

Analysis: Jurisdiction in a personal action may arise where the defendant is resident in the foreign country when the suit is instituted and served, or where he agrees to submit to that forum. The materials showed service of summons on the defendant while he was resident at Kuala Lumpur and also a written consent by which he agreed to take judgment for the claim amount. The challenge that he was merely a tourist was not substantiated.

Conclusion: The foreign Court had competent jurisdiction, and the objection under the jurisdictional exception failed.

Issue (ii): whether the foreign decree was not on merits and so fell within the statutory exception.

Analysis: A decree entered on a mere default without adjudication is not on merits, but a consent decree passed after the institution of a genuine controversy and after service of summons stands on a different footing. The suit was founded on an actual dispute regarding repayment of the loan, and the defendant's written consent preceded the decree. The decision therefore did not rest on mere non-appearance or a summary refusal to contest.

Conclusion: The decree was on merits and was not hit by the statutory exception.

Issue (iii): whether the decree was vitiated by breach of natural justice or fraud.

Analysis: The record showed service of summons, participation through consent, and adherence to the procedure followed by the foreign Court. The allegation of fraud was bald and unsupported by particulars, and no evidence was adduced by the defendant to show denial of fair procedure. A foreign judgment carries a presumption that the procedure followed was fair and proper unless the contrary is established.

Conclusion: The decree was not shown to be opposed to natural justice or obtained by fraud.

Issue (iv): whether the requirements for execution of the foreign decree under the Code were not satisfied.

Analysis: The objection regarding non-certification of the decree copy was not pleaded before the executing court and could not be raised for the first time in revision. The certificate of non-execution was on record, and the procedural objection was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The objection under the execution provisions failed.

Final Conclusion: The foreign decree was held executable and the revision challenging its execution could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign decree passed by a Court having jurisdiction over a resident defendant who has submitted to that forum by written consent, after a real controversy has arisen and after service of summons, is a judgment on merits and remains executable unless a statutory exception such as want of jurisdiction, absence of merits, fraud, or denial of natural justice is affirmatively established.

---