/2022 INSC 0088/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
              CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).     521   OF   2022
        (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 22539 of 2014)
MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH
(NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE 
DEUTSCHLAND GmbH)  …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   appellant/decree   holder   has   challenged   the   judgment   of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 1 st
  July, 2014
relegating to file a petition for execution of a money decree dated 7 th
February,   2006(in   excess   of   Rs.   20   lakhs)   of   a   foreign   Court
1

indisputedly notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory
before the District Court in view of Section 44A of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908(hereinafter being referred to as the “Code”).
3. It   is   an   old   saying   that   the   difficulties   of   the   litigant   in   India
begin  when  he   has   obtained   a  decree.    The  evil  was  noticed  as   far
back in 1872 by the Privy Council in relation to the difficulties faced
by the decree holder in execution of the decree (MIA p.612) 1
.   After
more than a century, there has been no improvement and still the
decree holder  faces the same problem  what was being faced in the
past.     A   litigant   coming   to   Court   seeking   relief   is   not   interested   in
receiving a paper decree when he succeeds in establishing his case.
What he primarily wants from the Court of Justice is the relief and
if it is a money decree, he wants that money what he is entitled for
in terms of the decree, must be satisfied by the judgment debtor at
the   earliest   possible   without   fail   keeping   in   view   the   reasonable
restrictions/rights   which   are   available   to   the   judgment   debtor
under the provisions of the statute or the code, as the case may be.
1   General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 MIA 605 : 
20 ER 912
2

4. Instant case is the live illustration before us where the decree
holder   was   able   to   get   a   money   decree   of   a   foreign   Court   which   is
notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory way back on
7 th
  February, 2006 and after 16 years have been rolled by, still the
screen  is smokey   and not  clear  as  to  which  is the  forum   where  he
could approach for execution of a decree.
5. The   brief   facts   culled   out   from   the   record   are   that   the
appellant   initiated   proceedings   before   the   High   Court   of   Justice,
Queen’s   Bench   Division,   Commercial   Court,   United
Kingdom(“English   Court”)   which   is   a   superior   Court   of   a
reciprocating territory(namely, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern   Island)   notified   under   Section   44A   of   the   Code   vide
Notification   No.   SRO   399   dated   1 st
  March,   1953   issued   by   the
Ministry of Law as amended by GSR 201 dated 13 th
 March, 1958.
6. Earlier, a default decree was passed due to non­appearance of
the   respondent/judgment   debtor   in   UK   Court   on   6 th
  February,
2003.  The appellant issued a winding up notice to the respondent,
who   objected   the   same   as   the   judgment   dated   6 th
  February,   2003
was   a   default   decree.   To   meet   the   objection   raised   by   the
3

respondent,   the   appellant   approached   the   English   Court   and
sought setting aside of the default decree and prayed for passing a
decree   on   merits   of   the   case.     At   this   juncture,   the   respondent
entered   appearance   and   the   English   Court   by   a   judgment   and
decree   dated   7 th
  February,   2006   granted   a   money   decree   for   a
principal sum of US $ 5,824,564.74.
7. It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   the   respondent   did   not   file   any
appeal   against   the   judgment   and   decree   dated   7 th
  February   2006
and that has attained finality.
8. The total decretal amount indisputedly on the date of filing of
the   execution   petition   before   the   Delhi   High   Court   on   27 th
  April,
2006 was exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs which was the pecuniary limits of
the   Delhi   High   Court   in   terms   of   Section   5(2)   of   the   Delhi   High
Court   Act,   1966(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   “Act   1966”)   which
was later enhanced to Rs.2 crores in the year 2015, to entertain the
execution petition as the principal Court of original jurisdiction.
9. It has been alleged by the appellant that the decretal amount,
if it is taken at the face value as on 20 th
  January, 2022, may come
to approximately Rs. 99 crores.
4

10. The appellant filed a petition for execution of money decree in
the   High   Court   of   Delhi   on   27 th
  April,   2006.     A   reply   to   the
execution   petition   was   filed   by   the   respondent   on   17 th
  January
2007, raising several objections which are available at its command
as   envisaged   under   Section   13   of   the   Code.     Later   a   further
objection   was   raised   that   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   has   no
jurisdiction   to   entertain   the   execution   petition   in   view   of   Section
44A of the Code.
11. Learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   overruled   the
preliminary   objections   and   held   that   taking   value   of   the   execution
of the money decree dated 7 th
  February, 2006 of the English Court
exceeding   Rs.   20   lakhs,   at   given   point   of   time,   i.e.,   27 th
  April,
2006(the day on which the execution petition was filed), High Court
of   Delhi   holds   the   exclusive   jurisdiction   of   ordinary   original   civil
jurisdiction   and   after   meeting   out   other   objections   on   merits
decided the execution petition by a judgment dated 29 th
  November,
2013.  The operative part of the judgment are as under:­ 
E.A. No. 653 of 2009
69. This is an application by the DH for a direction to the JD to
deposit the original title deeds of Sahibabad property.
5

70. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and
a direction is issued to the JD to deposit the original title deeds of
the   property,   land   measuring   18774   sq.   yds.   At   8/7,   Site­IV,
Sahibabad,   Industrial   Area,   Sahibabad,   District   Ghaziabad   in   the
Court within two weeks, and when so deposited, it shall be kept in
a sealed cover  by the Court.   At the time of filing the original title
deeds,   the   JD   will   deliver   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the   DH   a
photocopy thereof.
EA No. 654 of 2009
71. By   this   application,   the   DH   seeks   a   clarification   that   the
order dated 3 rd
  November, 2009 passed by the Court releasing the
lien  on the property  at  Ghaziabad, Uttar  Pradesh  should be made
conditional   upon   the   Managing   Director   (MD)   or   any   other
competent director of the JD furnishing a written undertaking that
the Ghaziabad property is free from all encumbrances and further
than no written consent from the State Bank of India (‘SBI’) under
Clause 11 of the agreement for hypothecation of goods and assets
dated 24 th
 November, 2008 is required.
72. Despite notice having been served in both these applications
way   back   on   20 th
  November   2009,   no   reply   has   been   filed   to   this
application.
73. Consequently,   the   application   is   allowed   and   a   direction   is
issued to the MD/authorized Director of the JD to file an affidavit
in   this   Court   within   two   weeks   clarifying   (a)   that   the   property   at
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad is free from all encumbrances or charge as
on   the   date   of   the   order   dated   3 rd
  November,   2009;   (b)   that   no
written consent from the SBI under Clause 11 of the Agreement for
hypothecation of the goods and assets dated 24 th
  November, 2008
is required for enforcing the said order vis­à­vis the said Sahibabad
property in terms of the statement made by the JD to the Court on
27 th
  April,   2006   and   (c   )   that,   as   on   date,   there   is   no   lien/charge
etc. created on the Sahibabad property.
74. The application is disposed of.”
6

12. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Delhi   dated   29 th
  November,   2013   was   assailed   by   the   respondent­
judgment debtor before the Division Bench of the High Court.
13. The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   in   the   facts   and
circumstances,   considered   it   appropriate   to   examine   the   singular
issue   confining   it   to   the   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   in
executing the money decree dated 7 th
 February, 2006 of the English
Court, in exercise of its original jurisdiction in terms of Section 44A
of   the   Code   and   after   the   parties   being   heard,   arrived   at   the
conclusion that Section 44A is an independent right conferred on a
foreign decree holder for enforcement of its decree in India.   It is a
fresh   cause   of   action   and   has   no   co­relation   with   jurisdictional
issues.     The   scheme   of   Section   44A   of   the   Code   is   alien   to   the
scheme   of   domestic   execution   as   provided   under   Section   39(3)   of
the Code and finally held that the High Court of Delhi, not being a
District   Court,   in   terms   of   Section   44A   of   the   Code,   is   not   vested
with the jurisdiction to entertain execution petition and directed to
be   transferred   to   the   Court   of   District   Judge   within   whose
jurisdiction the property sought to be attached is situated for being
7

dealt   with   in   accordance   with   law,   which   is   a   subject   matter   of
challenge in appeal before us.
14. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing
for   the   appellant   submits   that   the   jurisdiction   for   execution   of   a
foreign   Court’s   decree   of   a   reciprocating   territory   vests   with   the
High Court of Delhi, provided the value of the money decree exceeds
the pecuniary limits as notified under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966.
15. Learned counsel further submits that it is not in dispute that
the judgment and decree dated 7 th
 February, 2006 has been passed
by   a   notified   superior   Court   of   the   reciprocating   territory,   namely,
United   Kingdom   of   Great   Britain   and   Northern   Ireland   within   the
meaning of Section 44A of the Code in terms of a notification dated
1 st
  March   1953   issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Law.     The   High   Court   of
Delhi also vests with the ordinary original civil jurisdiction, subject
to   the   pecuniary   limits   as   being   notified   under   Section   5(2)   of   the
Act 1966 and it would be impossible to read into Section 44A that
even though the pecuniary  jurisdiction of a civil Court(which lacks
the   pecuniary   jurisdiction)   is   restricted,   only   for   the   purpose   of
execution of a foreign decree, it becomes a District Court in respect
8

of the matters which fall within the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the
High   Court   and   when   there   is   a   split   jurisdiction   in   the   cities   like
Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai, the High Court would have to
be   considered   to   be   included   as   “a   principal   civil   Court   of   original
jurisdiction”   where   it   exceeds   its   pecuniary   jurisdiction   as   being
contemplated in the respective statutes alike Section 5(2) of the Act
1966 in the instant case.
16. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   there   can   be   two   or
more   Courts   which   are   concurrently   a   principal   civil   Court   of
original   jurisdiction   subject   to   their   pecuniary   limits   as   being
envisaged   under   Section   5(2)   of   the   Act   1966.     If   that   being   so,   if
pecuniary   jurisdiction   exceeds   what   is   prescribed/notified   under
the Act, it is the High Court of Delhi which will be considered to be
the   principal   Court   of   original   civil   jurisdiction   as   defined   under
Section   5(2)   of   the   Act   1966   and   the   execution   petition   being   a
continuation of the suit proceedings, the Division Bench of the High
Court   has   committed   a   manifest   error   in   holding   that   the   High
Court   of   Delhi   is   not   vested   with   the   jurisdiction   to   entertain   an
9

execution   petition   as   being   a   District   Court   defined   in   terms   of
Section 44A of the Code.
17. Per   Contra,   Mr.   Rakesh   Dwivedi,   learned   senior   counsel   for
the   respondent,   while   supporting   the   finding   recorded   in   the
impugned   judgment,   submits   that   Section   44A   is   an   independent
right   conferred   on   a   foreign   decree   holder   for   enforcement   of   its
decree in India and the scheme of Section 44A of the Code is alien
to   the   scheme   of   domestic   execution   as   provided   under   Section
39(3) of the Code.   The domestic decree can indeed be executed by
the   Court   which   passed   the   decree   or   Court   of   competent
jurisdiction   to   which   it   is   transferred   for   execution.     So   far   as
execution of foreign decree is concerned, it is being governed by an
independent   right   conferred   under   Section   44A   of   the   Code   which
unequivocally   confers   exclusive   jurisdiction   in   this   regard   on   a
“District   Court”   and   the   words   mandating   the   competence   of   the
executing  Court, to try the original cause, in which the decree was
passed, are conspicuous by their absence, in this provision.
18. To be more specific, learned counsel submits that Section 44A
of   the   Code   is   in   the  nature  of   an  independent,   enabling   provision
10

which   gives   the   decree   holder   a   fresh   and   new   cause   of   action
irrespective   of   the   original   character   of   the   cause   in   which   the
decree came to be passed.
19. Learned counsel further  submits  that  so  far   as the  pecuniary
competence to try a suit of the decretal amount is concerned, it may
be in the context of the domestic decree for execution as referred to
under Sections 38 and 39 of the Code and once Section 44A confers
exclusive   jurisdiction   on   District   Court   in   which   the   money   decree
of a foreign Court has to be filed for execution, no other Court holds
competence other than the District Court for execution of a foreign
decree.
20. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   Section   5(2)   of   the   Act
1966 conferred with a limited ordinary original civil jurisdiction qua
‘suits’ above a certain pecuniary value and further submits that the
expression “suit” as used in Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 has to be
understood   in   its   ordinary,   limited   sense   of   a   ‘Civil   Suit’,   and   will
not   include   execution   proceedings.     Section   4   of   the   Delhi   High
Court(Amendment)   Act,   2003   draws   a   distinction   between   a   “suit”
and   “other   proceedings”   and   submits   that   it   is   the   District   Court
11

alone which holds jurisdiction for executing a foreign decree and no
error   has   been   committed   by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned
judgment which may call for interference of this Court.
21. We  have  heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and  with   their
assistance perused the material available on record.
22. The question that emerges for our consideration is whether the
High   Court   of   Delhi   in   exercise   of   its   original   jurisdiction   is   a
competent   Court   to   entertain   a   petition   for   executing   a   money
decree(in excess of Rs.20 lakhs) of a foreign Court which is notified
as  a  superior  Court  of  reciprocating  territory  under   Section  44A  of
the Code.
23. It is not disputed that so far as the expression “superior Court
of   any   reciprocating   territory”   as   defined   under   Section   44A   of   the
Code   is   concerned,   the   judgment   and   decree   dated   7 th
  February,
2006   has   been   passed   by   the   notified   superior   Court   of   the
reciprocating   territory,   namely,   United   Kingdom   of   Great   Britain
and Northern Ireland within the meaning of Section 44A of the Code
vide   notification   dated   1 st
  March,   1953   issued   by   the   Ministry   of
Law,   thus   it   leaves   no   doubt   that   the   decree   of   the   High   Court   of
12

England would be considered to be a decree of superior  Court of a
reciprocating territory.
24. In   order   to   appreciate   the   submissions   made,   it   may   be
relevant   to   first   take   a   look   at   the   scheme   of   the   Code   and   also
relevant   provisions   of   the   Act   1966   which   are   reproduced
hereunder:­
“Section 2(4) of the Code – “District”
“district”   means   the   local   limits   of   the   jurisdiction   of   a   principal
Civil   Court   of   original   jurisdiction   (hereinafter   called   a   “District
Court”),   and   includes   the   local   limits   of   the   ordinary   original   civil
jurisdiction of a High Court;
Section 6 of the Code – “Pecuniary Jurisdiction”
Save   in   so   far   as   is   otherwise   expressly   provided,   nothing   herein
contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the
amount   or   value   of   the   subject­matter   of   which   exceeds   the
pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.
Section   13   of   the   Code   –   “When   Foreign   Judgement   not
Conclusive”
A   foreign   judgment   shall   be   conclusive   as   to   any   matter   thereby
directly   adjudicated   upon   between   the   same   parties   or   between
parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the
same title except—
( a )   where   it   has   not   been   pronounced   by   a   Court   of
competent jurisdiction;
( b )   where   it   has   not   been   given   on   the   merits   of   the
case;
( c ) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to
be   founded   on   an   incorrect   view   of   international   law
13

or   a   refusal   to   recognise   the   law   of   India   in   cases   in
which such law is applicable;
( d ) where the proceedings in which the judgment was
obtained are opposed to natural justice;
( e ) where it has been obtained by fraud;
( f )   where   it   sustains   a   claim   founded   on   a   breach   of
any law in force in   India.
Section   44A   of   the   Code   ­   “Execution   of   Decrees   passed   by
Courts in reciprocating territory”
(1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior courts
of   any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the
decree   may   be   executed   in   India   as   if   it   had   been   passed   by   the
District Court.
(2)   Together   with   the   certified   copy   of   the   decree   shall   be   filed   a
certificate   from   such   superior   court   stating   the   extent,   if   any,   to
which   the   decree   has   been   satisfied   or   adjusted   and   such
certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section,
be   conclusive   proof   of   the   extent   of   such   satisfaction   or
adjustment.
(3)   The   provisions   of   Section   47   shall   as   from   the   filing   of   the
certified   copy   of   the   decree   apply   to   the   proceedings   of   a   District
Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court
shall   refuse   execution   of   any   such   decree,   if   it   is   shown   to   the
satisfaction   of   the   court   that   the   decree   falls   within   any   of   the
exceptions specified in clauses ( a ) to ( f ) of Section 13.
Explanation   1 .—“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.
Explanation 2 .—“Decree” with reference to a superior court means
any   decree   or   Judgment   of   such   Court   under   which   a   sum   of
money   is   payable,   not   being   a   sum   payable   in   respect   of   taxes   or
other   charges   of   a   like   nature   or   in   respect   of   a   fine   or   other
14

penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if
such an award is enforceable as a decree or Judgment.]]
Section   5   Delhi   High   Court   Act,   1966   –   “Jurisdiction   of   High
Court of Delhi”
(1) The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories
for the time being included in the Union Territory of Delhi, all such
original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force
immediately   before   the   appointed   day,   is   exercisable   in   respect   of
the said territories by the High Court of Punjab.
(2)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   any   law   for   the   time
being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of
the   said   territories   ordinary   original   civil   jurisdiction   in   every   suit
the value of which exceeds   Rupees twenty lakhs.
25. The   expression   ‘District”   is   defined   under   Section   2(4)   of   the
Code   and   the   term   “District   Court”   referred   under   Section   44A   of
the   Code   although   not   defined,   but   on   conjoint   reading   of   the
provision   makes   it   clear   that   it   refers   to   the   local   limits   of   the
jurisdiction   of   a   principal   civil   Court   of   original   jurisdiction
(provisions of the Code called a “District Court”) and it includes the
local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court
and   it   is   not   disputed   that   principal   civil   Court   of   original
jurisdiction   is   normally   a   District   Court   (with   whatever   change   in
the nomenclature) and the High Courts in India exercising ordinary
original civil jurisdiction are not too many, but where there is a split
15

jurisdiction based on its pecuniary value, notified from time to time,
the   District   Court   or   the   High   Court   in   its   ordinary   original   civil
jurisdiction  is competent to  exercise power  for  execution  of decree,
including   money   decree   of   the   foreign   Court   of   reciprocating
jurisdiction,   provided   other   conditions   are   complied   with   as
contemplated under Section 44A of the Code.
26. Section   44A   of   the   Code   provides   for   execution   of   decrees
passed   by   the   foreign   Courts   in   reciprocating   territories.     It,   inter
alia, stipulates that where a certified copy of a decree of any of the
superior   Court   of   any   reciprocating   territory   has   been   filed   in   a
District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been
passed by  a District Court.   Together  with the certified copy  of the
decree,   a   certificate   from   such   superior   court   is   to   be   filed   stating
the   extent,   if   any,   to   which   the   decree   has   been   satisfied   or
adjusted.   Such a certificate is the conclusive proof of the extent of
such   satisfaction   or   adjustment.     Sub­section   3   of   Section   44A   of
the   Code   further   lays   down   that   provisions   of   Section   47   of   the
Code shall apply  to such execution proceedings and the Court can
refuse   execution   of   any   such   decree,   if   it   is   shown   to   the
16

satisfaction   of   the   Court   that   the   decree   falls   within   any   of   the
exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) in Section 13 of the Code.
27. The   ordinary   original   civil   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   is
always exercised, based on pecuniary limits.  It would be impossible
to read into Section 44A of the Code that even though the pecuniary
jurisdiction   of   Civil   Court   is   restricted,   still   for   the   purpose   of
execution   of   a   foreign   decree,   it   becomes   the   District   Court   in
respect to those matters which fall within the ordinary original civil
jurisdiction  of  the  High   Court  and   the  expression   “district”  defined
under  Section 2(4) of  the Code will have to  be given  its true effect.
To read the expression “District Court” in Section 44A for execution
of foreign decree, it will be construed to be a Court holding ordinary
original   civil   jurisdiction   in   terms   of   its   pecuniary   limits   as   being
notified under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966.
28. It   leaves   no   manner   of   doubt   that   once   the   pecuniary
jurisdiction   at   the   given   point   of   time   exceeded   Rs.   20   lakhs   as
notified by the High Court under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 (later
vide notification dated 10 th
  August, 2015 (w.e.f. 26 th
  October, 2015)
pecuniary   limits   has   been   revised   to   Rs.2   crores),   it   is   the   High
17

Court   of   Delhi   which   holds   its   exclusive   jurisdiction   as   ordinary
original   civil   jurisdiction   to   execute   a   foreign   decree   under   Section
44A of the Code and it goes without saying that execution always is
in continuation of the proceedings.
29.   Section   24   of   the   Punjab   Courts   Act   1918,   of   which   the
Division  Bench  has put its emphasis, which  is applicable to Delhi,
the   Court   of   District   Judge   would   be   the   principal   civil   Court   of
original  jurisdiction.    Under   Section   5(1)  of  the  Act  1966, the  High
Court   of   Delhi   exercises   all   such   original,   appellate   and   other
jurisdiction  as   was   exercisable   by  the   High   Court   of  Punjab   in   the
Union Territory of Delhi.  Then, there is Section 5(2) of the Act 1966
which starts with a non­obstante clause which empowers the High
Court   of   Delhi   to   exercise   its   ordinary   original   civil   jurisdiction   in
every   suit   where   the   pecuniary   value   exceeds,   as   being   notified   by
the   competent   authority   and   thus,   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   indeed
holds original civil jurisdiction in a suit where the value exceeds its
pecuniary limits and if Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is
read with Section 5(2) of the Act 1966, it is quite clear that certain
jurisdiction   has   been   taken   away   from   the   District   Court   and
18

conferred   with   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   and   this   original   civil
jurisdiction is only in respect to the suits where the pecuniary limit
exceeds   as   notified   by   the   authority   under   Section   5(2)   of   the   Act
1966   and   that   would   make   the   High   Court   of   Delhi,   the   principal
Court of original civil jurisdiction, for all practical purposes.  
30. The   Division   Bench   has   proceeded   on   the   basis   of   the
expression “District Court”, as being referred under  Section 44A of
the Code but it has not taken into consideration the other relevant
provisions of which a reference has been made by us while coming
to   the   conclusion   that   the   expression   “District”   as   defined   under
Section 2(4) of the Code only lays down the limits of the jurisdiction
of the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction and that includes
the   ordinary   original   civil   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   and   once
the   pecuniary   jurisdiction   exceeds   as   being   notified   under   the
relevant   statute,   the   jurisdiction   vests   exclusively   with   the   High
Court   as   an   ordinary   original   civil   jurisdiction   for   execution   of   a
foreign   decree   under   Section   44A   subject   to   the   just   objections
which   are   available   to   the   parties/judgment   debtor   as   envisaged
under Section 13 of the Code.
19

31.   Consequently,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   accordingly   allowed.
The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 1 st
 July
2014 is hereby  quashed and  set aside.   Since the parties have not
addressed   on   merits,   E.F.A.(O.S.)   No.   3   of   2014   is   restored   on   the
file of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.  This being an
old matter where the foreign decree dated 7 th
  February, 2006 could
not   have   been   executed   for   almost   16   years   by   this   time,   we
consider   it   appropriate   to   observe   that   let   the   Division   Bench   may
take   up   the   matter   on   priority   and   decide   the   same   on   its   own
merits as expeditiously as possible keeping in view its long awaiting
execution   in   accordance   with   law,   but   in   no   case   later   than   four
months.
32. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
  
………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………...J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 28, 2022.
20