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
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:
- where the defendant-is a subject of a foreign country in which a
judgment has been obtained;[iv]
- where he was resident in the foreign country when the action began;
- where the defendant in the character of plaintiff has selected the forum
in which he is afterwards sued;
- where he has voluntarily appeared; [v] and
- 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:
- 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]
- 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]
- 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
- When a foreign court dismisses a suit, it cannot be enforced in
- Mandatory and interlocutory injunction can be enforced on the basis of a
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:
- Foreign judgments from reciprocating territories; and
- 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:
- United Kingdom; [xiv]
- Aden; [xv]
- Fiji; [xvi]
- Republic of Singapore; [xvii]
- Federation of Malaya; [xviii]
- Trinidad and Tabago; [xix]
- New Zealand, the Cook Island (Including Niue) and the Trust Territory of
Western Samoa; [xx]
- Hong Kong; [xxi]
- Papua and New Guinea. [xxii]
- 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
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:
- 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]
- 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:
- The decree must be of a superior court of a reciprocating territory;
- The certified copy of a decree is to be filed in a District Court or a
high court exercising original civil jurisdiction;
- The Decree maybe executed in India as if it had been passed by the
- 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;
- 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
- 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
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
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
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:
- The defendant was a subject of that foreign state;[xlvi]
- where the defendant in the character of a plaintiff had elected the
forum in which he is afterwards sued; or
- where he, the defendant, had voluntarily appeared in that court and had
submitted to its jurisdiction, or
- 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
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
(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]
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
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
[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
[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
[xvi] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No S.R.O. 1959 dated 22nd March
[xvii] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No F12 (4)/ 68J dated 17th June
[xviii] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No S.R.O. 4, dated 3rd January
[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
[xxi] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No G.S.R. 2096, dated 18th
[xxii] Government Notification, Ministry of Law, No G.S.R. 1720, dated 26th
[xxiii] Saleem Abdulrahman Eracham Veetil v. State of Guajarat and Ors., MANU
[xxiv] Dr. Devika Damji Shah v. Rashmi Mukesh Shah and Anr., 114 BomLR 2757,
[xxv] id., 24.
[xxvi] Talari Satyam v. Ashannagari Jeevan Reddy and Ors., MANU 339,
[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
[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
[xxxvi] M.V. Cape Climbers v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pvt. Ltd., MANU 363,
[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
[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
[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
[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).