Executability of foreign court decree upheld where residence and written consent conferred jurisdiction, enabling execution to proceed.

Executability of a foreign decree is examined through territorial and consensual bases for jurisdiction; evidence of residence at the time of suit and a pre-decree written consent were held to confer jurisdiction, rendering the foreign Court competent and the decree enforceable. A consent decree reached after an existing controversy was treated as a judgment on the merits and binding as estoppel, not vulnerable to objection as non-adjudicative. Allegations of fraud or breach of natural justice were unsupported by evidence and rejected, and procedural objections to certification were raised too late, so execution was directed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the foreign judgment obtained at Kuala Lumpur was rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the consent judgment amounted to a judgment on the merits within Section 13(b) of the Code; (iii) Whether the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud or was opposed to natural justice within Sections 13(d) and 13(e) of the Code; (iv) Whether requirements of Section 44A(1) and (2) of the Code regarding certified copies and certification were satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether the foreign Court had jurisdiction under Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Evidence showed service of summonses on the judgment-debtor in Kuala Lumpur, a letter of consent acknowledging receipt of the summons and consenting to judgment, and facts indicating residence at the relevant times. These facts correspond to recognised circumstances conferring jurisdiction on a foreign court for actions in personam, including residence and an agreement to submit to the forum.

Conclusion: Held in favour of the Respondent; the foreign Court had competent jurisdiction under Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the consent judgment is a judgment on the merits within Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The plaint exhibited a real controversy at suit commencement concerning repayment of a loan; the defendant subsequently gave a written consent to judgment after service of summons. Precedent supports that a consent or compromise resolving an existing controversy, entered after summons and reflected in the foreign court's procedure, constitutes a judgment on the merits for recognition purposes.

Conclusion: Held in favour of the Respondent; the consent judgment is a judgment on the merits within Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (iii): Whether the foreign judgment was tainted by fraud or opposed to natural justice under Sections 13(d) and 13(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The decree-holder gave oral evidence and produced documentary proof of adherence to foreign court procedure; the allegation of fraud or breach of natural justice was unsubstantiated and not supported by cross-examination or by the judgment-debtor's own evidence or pleadings.

Conclusion: Held in favour of the Respondent; no fraud or denial of natural justice was established under Sections 13(d) and 13(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (iv): Whether the provisions of Section 44A(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding certified copies and certification were satisfied.

Analysis: A certificate of non-execution from the foreign Court was produced; the objection as to absence of a certified copy was not pleaded or urged below and was raised for the first time in revision, rendering it too late for acceptance.

Conclusion: Held in favour of the Respondent; requirements of Section 44A(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were effectively satisfied or the objection was waived by non-presentation earlier.

Final Conclusion: The revision against the execution of the foreign decree fails on all substantive grounds and the execution proceedings were rightly directed to proceed; the revision is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign consent judgment resolving an existing controversy and supported by evidence of residence or agreement to submit to the foreign forum is a judgment on the merits entitled to recognition and execution unless fraud or denial of natural justice is proved, and procedural certification objections not taken below may be barred by delay.

---