Section 13 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) provides that a foreign judgment, which directly adjudicates a matter between two
parties, shall be conclusive as far as that matter is concerned. However,
Section 13 also provides for the conditions which, if satisfied, will affect
the conclusiveness of the judgment. In total, six conditions have been stipulated
under the section.
At the outset, it
should be understood that the rules provided under Section 13 of CPC are rules
of substantive law and not merely of procedure.[1]
The
expression “matter” in Section 13 is not equivalent to subject-matter: it means
the right claimed.[2]While
determining the validity of a foreign judgement, it should also be noted that a
court of a foreign country has no jurisdiction to deliver a judgment capable of
enforcement, or recognition in another country in any proceeding the subject-matter of which is title to
immovable property outside that country.[3]Hence,
a foreign decree, related to the title of an immovable property, may not be
enforceable.
The binding character
of the foreign judgment may be displaced only by establishing that the case
falls within one or more of the six clauses of Section 13, and not otherwise. Further,
it is the judgment which is conclusive and not the reasons.[4]The
competence contemplated by Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in an
international sense, and not merely by the law of the foreign State in which
the Court delivering judgment functions.[5]
One of the conditions contemplated under Section 13, for challenging the conclusiveness of foreign judgment, is the violation of natural justice. However, there would be no violation of natural justice when, on being served with notice, a party makes a choice as to not present itself before the court.[6] Interestingly,
if one of the defendants dies and his legal representatives happen to be non-resident
foreigners, then the court, where suit was initially initiated, would still be
competent to try it.[7]
In cases related to
child custody issues, a careful consideration should be given while determining
the validity of a foreign decree.[8]Hence,
in matters relating to matrimony and custody, the law of that place must govern
which has the closest concern with the well-being of the spouses and the
welfare of the off-springs of marriage.[9]
Supreme Court, in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi,[10]
laid down the rules in relation to the validity of foreign matrimonial judgements:
From the aforesaid
discussion the following rule can be deduced for recognising a foreign
matrimonial judgment in this country. The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign
court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in
accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The
exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is
filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and
permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the
matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent
voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as
discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available
under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the
respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the
forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the
parties.
Under Section 13(b), burden
to prove that the decree is not on merits is on the person alleging it.
However, courts, in such a situation, do not expect one to adduce impossible
proofs.[11]We
conclude this post thereby providing a brief overview of Section 13 of CPC.
[6] Lalji Raja and Sons v. Hansraj
Nathuram, (1971) 1 SCC 721; International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K.)
Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 265
