Bombay High Court holds framing of issues and recording evidence in Section 44A execution only in exceptional cases; petition dismissed, District Judge asked to decide within three months

A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne heard a writ petition challenging an order of the District Judge, Pune that allowed the judgment-debtor to have issues framed and permitted the parties to lead evidence in execution proceedings under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition arose from execution proceedings filed to enforce a default decree of the Fujairah Civil Court, UAE, after the Central Government notified the UAE as a “reciprocating territory”.

The High Court held that while Section 44A created a streamlined route to execute decrees of superior courts in reciprocating territories, the enquiry under Section 44A(3) into the exceptions enumerated in Section 13 (clauses (a)–(f)) must ordinarily be a summary inquiry and not a full‑fledged trial. The Court observed that framing issues and permitting oral evidence in execution proceedings was permissible only in exceptional circumstances. The Court quoted established principles, noting that “framing of issue would at best be a matter of prudence but not a rule,” and relying on the principle that “the court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, it will have to be necessarily presumed that the second inquiry under Section 44A (3) of the Code into existence of circumstances enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 will have to be necessarily a summary inquiry and not a full‑fledged trial. Therefore, in every case, it is not mandatory that the issues are framed and evidence is directed to be led for conducting a full‑fledged trial into existence of circumstances enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the Code when District Court executes a decree made by foreign court in reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code.”

Background The petitioners were decree‑holders who obtained a default judgment and decree in the Fujairah Civil Court in favour of Candica Industries FZC and against the respondent, ordering payment of AED 4,082,357 plus interest and costs. The decree‑holders said the UAE decree remained unsatisfied and sought execution in India. Their earlier execution application was dismissed because UAE had not then been declared a reciprocating territory; subsequently, the Central Government issued a notification declaring the UAE a reciprocating territory and the decree‑holders filed fresh execution proceedings (Darkhast No. 2554 of 2020) before the District Judge, Pune.

The respondent appeared and filed objections under Section 13 and an application (Exh.20) seeking framing of issues and permission to lead evidence, alleging inter alia that the foreign decree was obtained in breach of natural justice, by suppression and fraud and that the decree was not on merits. The District Judge allowed Exh.20 and framed multiple issues including whether the judgment was obtained by fraud, whether natural justice had been violated, and whether the execution petition was within limitation, granting liberty to lead evidence and directing co‑operation to decide issues within 90 days.

Petitioners contended that Section 44A intended swift execution and that permitting routine framing of issues and a full trial would negate the legislative object and convert execution under Section 44A into a suit on foreign judgment. They relied on Marine Geotechnics LLC and other precedents to urge that objections under Section 13 ought to be determined from the foreign record without oral evidence. Respondent argued that exceptional circumstances existed (notably limitation, alleged suppression of the respondent’s Indian address and emails) and that the Executing Court had recorded reasons justifying framing of issues and evidence.

The High Court found that Section 44A treated decrees from reciprocating territories as executable like domestic decrees but required a twin inquiry — under Section 47 and into Section 13 exceptions — and that the latter was normally summary. The Court recorded that the Executing Court had identified contested facts (service, existence of emails, alleged suppression, and authority to sign) that raised triable issues and constituted exceptional circumstances warranting evidence. The writ petition was dismissed but the High Court directed the District Judge to decide the framed issues expeditiously, preferably within three months, and asked parties to cooperate; all rights and contentions remained open.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 14283 OF 2023 Case Title: Elis Jane Quinlan and Ors. v. Naveen Kumar Seth, Director of Candica Industries Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar with Mr. Aakash Shinaa i/b M/s. Juris Corp For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohan Kelkar with Ms. Smruti Kanade i/b M/s. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah