With the dawn of globalisation, India has become a notable player in the global market making it paramount and befitting to appraise law relating to foreign judgment in India. According to law with respect to foreign judgment enforcement, it is stratified into recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which makes it necessary to draw a distinction between recognition and enforcement.

A sharp legal distinction can be drawn between recognition and enforcement, Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 furnishes the basis for recognition of a foreign judgement, which is a former step to be taken by courts before enforcement of any foreign judgment. Whereas Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 discusses enforcement of foreign judgment produced by both reciprocating and non-reciprocating territories.

Albeit, India is not a party to the  Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters , foreign judgments are recognised on the basis of bilateral treaties. In absence of bilateral treaties, India has also entered into few single lateral treaties with respect to enforcement of foreign judgments.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has defined Foreign Court and Foreign judgment as the following:

Section 2(5) defines Foreign Court as  Foreign court means a Court situate outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government [i];

Section 2(6) lays down the definition of foreign judgment as foreign judgment means the judgment of a foreign Court [ii];

Explicitly, it can be laid down as, a foreign judgment is a adjudication of a case presented before a foreign court.

2. Jurisdiction Of A Foreign Court:

Jurisdiction of foreign court is a requisite premise of private international law, unless a foreign court has a competent jurisdiction, the judgment delivered by it is not enforceable.

Section 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down a presumption as to foreign judgments- Presumption as to foreign judgments.- The Court shall presume, upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a Court to competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction. [iii]

In simple words, Section 14 of the Code states that, if a certified copy of a judgment is produced it is presumed that it is tried by a court with competent jurisdiction, unless proved contrary.

In a celebrated case of Madras High Court, circumstances when a foreign court has competent jurisdiction has been laid down:

1. where the defendant-is a subject of a foreign country in which a judgment has been obtained;[iv]
2. where he was resident in the foreign country when the action began;
3. where the defendant in the character of plaintiff has selected the forum in which he is afterwards sued;
4. where he has voluntarily appeared; [v] and
5. where he has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment was obtained. [vi],[vii]

The only jurisdiction which is overriding in matters of enforcement of foreign judgments is territorial competence over the defendant and the subject matter. No other jurisdiction is considered by Indian Courts.[viii] The competent jurisdiction of the Foreign court must be ascertained as soon as the suit is instituted.[ix]

3. Enforceable Foreign Judgment: Eligibility Criteria:
The eligibility criteria for a foreign judgment to be enforced can be laid down as stated below:

1. The foreign judgment must be final and conclusive, i.e., should not satisfy any conditions laid down under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; [x]
2. It should not be an arbitral award, as an arbitral award cannot be equated to a foreign judgment, and its validity cannot be questioned under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;[xi]
3. Ex-parte foreign orders are enforceable in India, if shown that they have been decided upon the merits of the case, mere fact that it is an ex-parte order cannot conclude that it is not decided upon the merits of the case;[xii]
4. When a foreign court dismisses a suit, it cannot be enforced in India;[xiii]
5. Mandatory and interlocutory injunction can be enforced on the basis of a foreign judgment.

4. Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments In India:

The position of enforceability of foreign judgments in India is crystal clear. The provisions laid down under Sections 13, 14, 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bring out an efficient mechanism to enforce foreign judgments.

The India Legal system classifies foreign judgments into two under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

1. Foreign judgments from reciprocating territories; and
2. Foreign judgments from non-reciprocating territories.

4.1. Reciprocating territories:
Reciprocating territory has been defined under Explanation I of Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as:

“Reciprocating territory” means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section, and “Superior Courts”, with reference to any such territory, means such courts as may be specified in the said notification.

For the purpose of Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the following listed countries are treated as reciprocating territories:

1. United Kingdom; [xiv]
2. Aden; [xv]
3. Fiji; [xvi]
4. Republic of Singapore; [xvii]
5. Federation of Malaya; [xviii]
6. Trinidad and Tabago; [xix]
7. New Zealand, the Cook Island (Including Niue) and the Trust Territory of Western Samoa; [xx]
8. Hong Kong; [xxi]
9. Papua and New Guinea. [xxii]
10. Bangladesh [xxiii]

In case of all the above mentioned reciprocating territories, the foreign judgment/ decree will be enforced under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if they are not declared inconclusive under the exceptions laid down in Section 13 of the Code.

4.1.1 Is UAE a reciprocating country?
There is a prodigious debate over whether United Arab Emirates is a reciprocating country to India or not. There is a diverging opinion with respect to the same. There is no dispute regarding any of the previously stated reciprocating territories except United Arab Emirates.

The indecisiveness regarding whether UAE is a reciprocating territory or not occurs due to the bilateral treaty entered into by India and UAE. The bilateral treaty deals with Juridical and Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters for The Service of Summons, Judicial Documents, Commissions, Execution of Judgments and Arbitral Awards ('Mutual Agreement Assistance'), yet UAE has not been notified as a reciprocating territory.

This conflict of opinion can be clearly seen with the help of the below mentioned judgments:

In the case of Dr. Devika Damji Shah v. Rashmi Mukesh Shah and Anr[xxiv]. (Hon’ble High Court of Bombay), the Dubai Court had granted the administration of the movable and immovable assets of the deceased to his minor son, basis a Will of the deceased. The appellant argued that for the judgment of the Dubai court to be accepted in India, it should be a ‘reciprocating territory’, notified by the Central Government and since UAE is not a ‘reciprocating territory’, the decree cannot be executed.

To counter this argument, the gazette notification under which the Mutual Assistance Agreement was published was presented. However, notification declaring UAE as ‘reciprocating territory’ was not presented. The Appellant argued that such an Agreement did not constitute a notification for the purpose of Section 44A of the CPC.

The Court, in this case, did not delve into the fact of UAE being ‘reciprocating territory’ and applicability of Mutual Assistance Agreement, since, the Court decided that the judgment was not conclusive and fell under the exceptions provided under Section 13.[xxv]

In another matter of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, in the case of Talari Satyam v. Ashannagari Jeevan Reddy and Ors [xxvi]., the Court requested the Assistant Solicitor General of India to ascertain from the Government of India as to whether the Mutual Assistance Agreement and the ‘Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999)’ were in force.

In response to this, a memo dated 01.05.2015 was submitted to the Hon’ble High Court, according to which the ‘Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999)’ was in force between the countries. The Court was silent regarding the applicability and enforcement of the Agreement.[xxvii]

From the above judgments it is apparent that there is no coherence as to whether the  Mutual Assistance Agreement  is applicable or not.

Recently, in response [xxviii] to a Right to Information application filed with the Ministry of Law and Justice, to seek clarity on the applicability of the Mutual Assistance Agreement, the Ministry clarified that UAE and India have entered into an Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in Civil and Commercial Matters which came into force on 29.05.2000. However, notification under Section 44A has not been issued as the concerned authorities of UAE have not provided the details regarding designation of courts of UAE which is required under Section 44A.[xxix]

On the other side of the coin in the case of Saleem Abdulrahman Eracham Veetil v. State of Gujarat and Ors.[xxx], Gujarat High Court recognised UAE as a reciprocating country in the list of reciprocating territories.

Thus, in the need of the hour it is advisable to file a suit on foreign judgment, in case of a foreign judgment coming from UAE.

4.2. Procedure for enforcement of foreign judgment:
A foreign judgment that is conclusive in nature according to Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e., only if it satisfies all conditions under Section 13(a) to (f)[xxxi], can be executed in two ways:

1. Firstly by filing an Execution Petition under Section 44A of the CPC (in case the conditions specified therein are fulfilled).
   In other words - Judgments from Courts in  reciprocating territories  can be enforced directly by filing before an Indian Court an Execution Decree.
   
   In Marine Geotechnics LLC v/s Coastal Marine Construction & Engineering Ltd. [xxxii], the Bombay High Court observed that in case of a decree from a non-reciprocating foreign territory, the decree holder should file, in a domestic Indian court of competent jurisdiction, a suit on that foreign decree or on the original, underlying cause of action, or both. [xxxiii]
   
2. Secondly by filing a suit upon the foreign judgment/decree
   The general principle of law is that any decision by a foreign court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority is not enforceable in a country unless such decision is embodied in a decree of a court of that country.[xxxiv]
   
   In this kind of a suit a foreign judgment cannot be directly executed and a fresh suit has to be instituted against such judgment to go into the merits of the original claim.
   
   In other words - Judgments from  non-reciprocating territories,  such as the United States, can be enforced only by filing a law suit in an Indian Court for a Judgment based on the foreign judgment. The foreign judgment is considered evidentiary. The time limit to file such a law suit in India is within three years of the foreign judgment.[xxxv]

5. Basic Requirements For Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments:

5.1. Formal Requirements:

According to Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the essential formal requirements for enforcing a foreign judgment in India in case of a reciprocating territory are as the following:

1. The decree must be of a superior court of a reciprocating territory;
2. The certified copy of a decree is to be filed in a District Court or a high court exercising original civil jurisdiction;
3. The Decree maybe executed in India as if it had been passed by the district;
4. Provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, subject to the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the Code;
5.  Decree  means any decree under which a sum of money is payable[xxxvi]  as per Explanation II of Section 44- A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
6. A certificate as to what extent the decree has been already satisfied (if any) has to be given by the foreign court;

But, with respect to non-reciprocating territories, a civil suit on the foreign decree must be filed by the judgment holder with a certified copy of the foreign judgment.

5.2. Substantial requirements:
Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, provides a slot to the court to refuse execution of foreign judgments if it is proved inconclusive as per the exceptions provided under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

(a) Where it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction (Section 13 (a))[xxxvii]:
It is basic principle of law that a judgment given by court without competent jurisdiction is void and cannot be enforced, this has been reiterated in Section 13 (a) as a condition to be satisfied in order for a foreign judgment to be conclusive. [xxxviii]

Such judgment must be by a competent court both by law of the state which has constituted it and in an international sense and it must have directly adjudicated upon the  subject matter  which is pleaded as res judicata.[xxxix] But what is conclusive is the judgment, i.e., the final adjudication and not the reasons for the judgment given by the foreign court.[xl]

The courts of a country generally impose a threefold restriction upon the exercise of their jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction in rem (binding not only the parties but the world at large) by a court over res outside the jurisdiction will not be exercised, because it will not be recognised by other courts; (2) The court will not deal directly with title to immovable property outside the jurisdiction of the state from which it derives its authority, and (3) court will not assist in the enforcement within its jurisdiction of foreign penal or revenue laws.[xli]

Leading case relating to this is Gurdyal v Raja of Faridkot. [xlii] In that case, A sued B in the court of the Indian state of Faridkot claiming Rs 60,000 alleged to have been misappropriated by B while in A's service at Faridkot. B did not appear at the hearing, and an ex parte decree was passed against him. B was a native of another Indian state, Jhind. In 1869, he left Jhind and went to Faridkot to take up service under A. In 1874, he left A's service, and returned to Jhind.

The suit was brought against him in 1879. At the date of the suit B neither resided in Faridkot nor was he a domiciled subject of the Faridkot state nor did he owe allegiance to that state. On these facts, the Faridkot state had on general principles of international law, no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against B in respect of the claim, which, it should be noted, was a mere personal claim as distinguished from a claim relating to land or movables.[xliii]

The decree of the Faridkot court was therefore, an absolute nullity. A then sued B in a British Indian court on the judgment of the Faridkot court. The court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the Faridkot court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

This decision was upheld by their Lordships of the Privy Council. The mere fact that the alleged embezzlement took place at Faridkot was not sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Faridkot court. The result would be the same if the suit were for damages for breach of a contract entered into by B with A at Faridkot.[xliv] In other words, a foreign court cannot assume jurisdiction in cases where the claim is a personal one merely because the cause on action arose within its jurisdiction. But if B was residing at Faridkot at the date of the suit, the Faridkot court would have had complete jurisdiction.

In the case of personal claims, it is the residence at the time when the action began that gives jurisdiction in a suit to a foreign court[xlv] unless:

1. The defendant was a subject of that foreign state;[xlvi]
2. where the defendant in the character of a plaintiff had elected the forum in which he is afterwards sued; or
3. where he, the defendant, had voluntarily appeared in that court and had submitted to its jurisdiction, or
4. where he had contracted to submit himself to that foreign forum.[xlvii]

On this rule, a decree passed by a court in Pakistan was held to be a nullity and not enforceable under this section on the ground that the defendant was neither a national nor a person having a domicile there at the date of commencement of the suit, nor was he served with the summons when he was there, nor had he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of' that court. [xlviii]

The same rule applies where the country in which the judgment was passed and that in which it is sought to be enforced have separate and distinct systems of administration and judicature, though owing allegiance to the same sovereign. Thus, a decree passed by the Ceylon Court (which is a foreign court within the meaning of s 21 in a suit on a contract), against a native of India, who was not at the time of the action residing in Ceylon is a nullity and it cannot be enforced by a suit in an Indian court.

(b) Where it has not been given on the merits of the case(Section 13(b))[xlix]:
In order to operate as res judicata, a foreign judgment must have been given on merits of the case.[l] In Keymer v Visvanathan[li] an action was brought in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England to recover a liquidated amount. The defendant failed to comply with an order to answer interrogatories and his defence was struck off and judgment was entered for the amount claimed for the plaintiff under RSC, O 31, r 21, corresponding to O 11, r 21 below. The plaintiff, subsequently instituted a suit on the judgment in the Madras High Court. It was held by the Judicial Committee, affirming the judgment of the Madras High Court, that the judgment sued on was not given on the merits of the case and that the suit was not maintainable. It has also been held by the same tribunal that a judgment on an award obtained in England by default cannot be sued on in India, since it is not a judgment 'on the merits of the case'.[lii]

A judgment is said to have given on merits, when after taking evidence and after applying his mind regarding the truth or falsity of the plaintiff's case, the judge decides the case one way or the other. Thus, when the suit is dismissed for default of defendant in furnishing security, or after refusing leave to defend, such judgments are not on merits.[liii] However, the mere fact of a decree being ex parte will not necessarily justify a finding that it was not on the merits.[liv]

It cannot be said that the expression 'judgment on the merits' implies that it must have been passed after contest and after evidence had been let in by both sides. An ex parte judgment in favour of the plaintiff may be deemed to be a judgment given on merits if some evidence is adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs and the judgment, however, brief, is based on a consideration of that evidence. Where however no evidence is adduced on the plaintiffs side and his suit is decreed merely because of the absence of the defendant either by way of penalty or in a formal manner, the judgment may not be one based on the merits of the case.[lv]

(c) Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of [India] in cases in which such law is applicable (Section 13(c)):[lvi]
A judgment based on incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India where such law is applicable is not conclusive.[lvii] The mistake must be apparent on the face of the proceedings. In an old Madras case[lviii] this clause was referred to where a foreign court had exercised jurisdiction contrary to the principles of international law. Where a foreign court in an inquiry before it in a probate proceeding refused to recognise the law of British India applicable to the deceased's immovable property in British India, it was held that the judgment of the foreign court was not one on which a suit will successfully lie.[lix] The judgment of a foreign court which awarded interest on costs does not become unenforceable under this section on the ground that there is no similar provision in the municipal law.[lx]So also, a decree of a Ceylon court awarding interest is not open to attack on the ground that the amount decreed is not in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act 1938.[lxi]

(d) Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice(Section 13(d))[lxii]:
When a judgement is given in defiance to natural justice under Section 13(d) of the Code it is considered as irregularities in the procedure as to how the case was decided and not whether it was decided upon the merits of the case or not [lxiii], and when such irregularities occur the judgment is said to be inconclusive. The mere fact that a foreign judgment is wrong in law does not make it one opposed to 'natural justice'. There must be something in the procedure anterior to the judgment which is repugnant to natural justice. [lxiv]

Thus, a foreign judgment obtained without notice of the suit to the defendant is contrary to natural justice, and a suit on such judgment is not maintainable in an Indian court.[lxv] A foreign judgment would be opposed to natural justice, if the judges who pronounced it are shown to have been biased or partial.[lxvi] But, a foreign judgment is not open to attack on the ground that in deciding on the validity of an adoption, the court had failed to apply the law of domicile by which the parties were governed,[lxvii] nor on the ground of a mere mistake even when that consists of error in calculation, nor on the ground that proper court fee has not been paid in the foreign court. [lxviii]

(e) Where it has been obtained by fraud (Section 13(e))[lxix]:
It is a well-established principle of Private International Law that if a foreign judgment is obtained by fraud, it will not operate as res judicata[lxx].It has been said,  Fraud and justice never dwell together  (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or  Fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).[lxxi]

Where, the deceased donor in fact had expired long before the respondents fraudulently obtained mutation in their favour showing deceased as present and witnessing said mutation of immovable property, the mutation obtained by fraudulent means is non-est just like decree obtained by fraud is nullity.[lxxii]

(f) Where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in [India] (Section 13(f)][lxxiii]
If a foreign judgment is founded upon a breach of any law in force on India, it will be declared as inconclusive under Section 13(f) of the Code. The rules of Private International Law cannot be adopted mechanically and blindly. [lxxiv]

Presumably, a foreign judgment on betting would not be enforceable in India.

Under s 47(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, a suit for the enforcement of a guarantee for which permission of the Reserve Bank/Central Government would have been required under s 26(6) can be brought in India. Filing of a suit, therefore, on such a guarantee cannot be said to be contrary to any law in India because s 47(3) expressly permits such legal proceedings in India. Such proceedings abroad cannot be said to be violative of any law in India. However, no steps can be taken for the purpose of enforcing any judgment or order for the payment of any sum under such a guarantee except in respect of so much thereof as the Central Government or the Reserve Bank may permit to be paid. The result is that before a foreign decree passed on such a guarantee can be executed in India, permission of the Reserve Bank or the Central Government for realising such sum is necessary. [lxxv]

6. Limitation:
The period of limitation for instituting a suit against a Foreign Judgment is six years according to Article 101, Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Where the court of a foreign country holds, applying its own law, that a suit is not barred by the law of limitation, it cannot be said that it has refused to recognize the law of India because the suit was barred according to the law of India. [lxxvi]

7. Conclusion:
The law relating to foreign judgment in India is unambiguous and lays down an uncomplicated procedure for enforcement of the same. Though there are various debates as to categorizing of reciprocating and non- reciprocating territories, it is due to paucity of information from other parties of bilateral treaties. India enforces various judgments to serve justice to every person. There are few general conditions that need to be satisfied for foreign judgment to be enforced in India, these conditions help in enforcing only those judgments which guarantee fairness to both the parties of the case. Hence, it can be concluded that, India has an efficient legal framework to enforce foreign judgments in India.

End-Notes:
[i] Code of Civil Procedure, §2(5) (1908).
[ii] Code of Civil Procedure, §2(6) (1908).
[iii] Code of Civil Procedure, §14 (1908).
[iv] Mathrukovil Kizhakkappat Matahil Ramalinga Aiyar v. Swaminatha Aiyar, ILR 891 (MADHC:1941).
[v] Ganga Prasad v. Ganeshi Lal, 46 ILR 119, (ALLHC:1924).
[vi] Ramanathan Chettyar and Anr. v. Kalimuthu Pillay and Anr., 24 MLJ 619, (MADHC.:1912).
[vii] Gurdyal Singh v. Rajah of Faridkote, 22 ILR 222(CALPC: 1895).
[viii] R. Vishwanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul, AIR 1, 14,54-55, (1963).
[ix] Andhra Bank Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan, AIR 232, 236 (1962).
[x] Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi, 3 SCC 451, 562-63 (1991).
[xi] Ganguli Engineering Co. v. Srimati Susila Bala, AIR 103, (CALHC: 1957).
[xii] Lalji Raja & Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, 1 SCC 721, 725 (1971).
[xiii] Gena v. Bidhichand, AIR 189 (RAJHC:1958).
[xiv] Government Notification Ministry of Law, No S.R.O. 399 dated 1st March 1953, as amended by G.S.R. 201, dated 13th March 1958.
[xv] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No S.R.O. 183 dated 18th January 1956.
[xvi] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No S.R.O. 1959 dated 22nd March 1954.
[xvii] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No F12 (4)/ 68J dated 17th June 1968.
[xviii] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No S.R.O. 4, dated 3rd January 1956.
[xix] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No F12 (3)/ 68J dated 31th July 1968. Note In force with effective from 1st September 1968.
[xx] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No S.R.O. 3282 dated 15th October 1957.
[xxi] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No G.S.R. 2096, dated 18th November 1968.
[xxii] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No G.S.R. 1720, dated 26th September 1970.
[xxiii] Saleem Abdulrahman Eracham Veetil v. State of Guajarat and Ors., MANU 1915 (GUJHC:2017).
[xxiv] Dr. Devika Damji Shah v. Rashmi Mukesh Shah and Anr., 114 BomLR 2757, (BOMHC:2012).
[xxv] id., 24.
[xxvi] Talari Satyam v. Ashannagari Jeevan Reddy and Ors., MANU 339, (APHC:2015).
[xxvii] id.,26.
[xxviii] Vide letter dated 23.01.2017.
[xxix] ndlo Advocates, India and UAE, Legal Update: Execution of foreign decree in India- Vis a vis Judgement decreed in UAE (Mar. 23, 2018, 9:15 PM) http://www.ndlo.in/pdfs/15.pdf.
[xxx] Saleem Abdulrahman Eracham Veetil v. State of Guajarat and Ors., MANU 1915 (GUJHC:2017).
[xxxi] Narahari Shivram v. Pannalal Umediram, 3 SCC 203 (1976).
[xxxii] Marine Geotechnics LLC v/s Coastal Marine Construction & Engineering Ltd., 2 BomCR 769 (BOMHC:2014).
[xxxiii] id., 32.
[xxxiv] Badat and Co. v. East India Trading Co., AIR 538 (1964).
[xxxv] Saleem Abdulrahman Eracham Veetil v. State of Guajarat and Ors., MANU 1915 (GUJHC:2017).
[xxxvi] M.V. Cape Climbers v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pvt. Ltd., MANU 363, (GUJHC:2015).
[xxxvii] Code of Civil Procedure, §13(a) (1908).
[xxxviii] Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi, AIR 1764, 1776 (1974).
[xxxix] Satya v. Teja Singh, AIR 105 (1975).
[xl] Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid, AIR 1 (1961).
[xli] R. Vishwanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul, AIR 1, 14,54-55, (1963).
[xlii] Gurdyal Singh v. Rajah of Faridkote, 22 ILR 222(CALPC: 1895).
[xliii]Nalla v. Mahomed, 20 ILR 112 (MADHC:1897).
[xliv]Mathapa v. Chellappa ILR 196 (MADHC:1876).
[xlv] Kassim v Isuf, 29 ILR 500 (CALHC: 1902) .
[xlvi] Mathrukovil Kizhakkappat Matahil Ramalinga Aiyar v. Swaminatha Aiyar, ILR 891 (MADHC:1941).
[xlvii] Vithalbhai v. Lalbhai, ILR 688 (BOMHC:1942).
[xlviii]Bharat Nidhi Ltd v. Megh Raj, AIR 22 (DELHC:1967).
[xlix] Code of Civil Procedure, §13(b) (1908).
[l] Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi, 3 SCC 451, 562-63 (1991).
[li] Keymer v Visvanathan, AIR 121 (PC:1916).
[lii] Oppenheim and Co v. Mahomed Haneef, AIR 120 (PC:1922).
[liii] Keymer v Visvanathan, AIR 121 (PC:1916).
[liv] Lalji Raja & Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, 1 SCC 721, 725 (1971).
[lv] M/S International Wollen Mills v. M/S Standard Wool,(UK,) Ltd, AIR 2134 (2001).
[lvi] Code of Civil Procedure, §13(c) (1908).
[lvii] R. Vishwanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul, AIR 1, 14,54-55, (1963).
[lviii] Hinde v. Ponnath, 4 ILR 359 (MADHC:1881).
[lix] Panchpakesa Iyer v. K.N. Husain, 66 MadLJ 209 (MADHC:1934).
[lx] Barket Lal v. Devi Das, AIR 29 (HYD:1952).
[lxi] Kunhiman v. Idoise Kutty, AIR 128 (KER:1958).
[lxii] Code of Civil Procedure, §13(d) (1908).
[lxiii] Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi, AIR 1764, 1776 (1974).
[lxiv] Rama Shenoi v. Hallagna, 41 ILR 205 (MADHC:1918).
[lxv] Edulji v. Manekji, 11 ILR 2441 (BOMHC:1887).
[lxvi] Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid, AIR 1 (1961).
[lxvii] Algemene Bank Nederland NV v. Satish Dayala Choksi, AIR 170 (BOMHC:1990).
[lxviii] Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi, AIR 1764, 1776 (1974).
[lxix] Code of Civil Procedure, §13(e) (1908).
[lxx] Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi, AIR 1764, 1776 (1974).
[lxxi] A.V Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., 4 SCC 221,231 (2007).
[lxxii] N Khosla v. Rajlakshmi, AIR 1249 (2006).
[lxxiii] Code of Civil Procedure, §13(f) (1908).
[lxxiv] Satya v. Teja Singh, AIR 105 (1975).
[lxxv] Algemene Bank Nederland NV v. Satish Dayala Choksi, AIR 170 (BOMHC:1990).
[lxxvi] Ganga Prasad v. Ganeshi Lal, 46 ILR 119, (ALLHC:1924).