JUDGMENT K. P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. Revision Petitioners are defendants in a suit filed by respondent on the strength of a foreign judgment before Sub Court, Quilon. The admissibility of the document was questioned by revision petitioners. The court below admitted that document in evidence. That order is under challenge in this revision. 2. It is urged by the learned counsel for revision petitioners that the copy of the foreign judgment was inadmissible in evidence since the conditions stipulated in S.78 and 80 of the Indian Evidence Act were not complied. Those conditions are mandatory according to revision petitioners and are to be complied with before the judgment can be admitted in evidence and proved. 3. A judgment of a foreign, court is enforced on the principle that when an adjudication has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction and it is found that a certain sum of money is due to one person from another a legal obligation thereby arises to pay that sum. By enforcing that judgment an action can be instituted for realisation of the money covered by that judgment. On the production of a certified copy of a foreign judgment a presumption has to be drawn that such judgment was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction unless the contrary appears on the record provided copy is a duly authenticated copy of the judgment. Vide S.14 C. P. C. But that presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction. The judgment has to be proved in the manner prescribed by the Indian Evidence Act. The relevant sections of the Evidence Act are S.74, 78(6) and 86. S.78(6) provides that public documents of any other class in a foreign country may be proved by the production of the original or a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof with a certificate under the seal of a Notary Public, or of an Indian Consul or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country. That the judgment is a public document cannot be disputed since it is a document forming the act of a public judicial officer of a foreign country as contemplated in S.74 of the Indian Evidence Act. That the judgment is a public document cannot be disputed since it is a document forming the act of a public judicial officer of a foreign country as contemplated in S.74 of the Indian Evidence Act. S.86 reads thus: "The Court may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record of any country not forming part of India or Her Majesty's Dominions is genuine and accurate, if the document purports to be certified in any manner which is certified by any representative of the Central Government in or for such country to be the manner commonly in use in that country for the certification of copies of judicial records.'' 4. On a reading of S.78(6) and 86 of the Evidence Act it would appear that three conditions must be complied with before the judgment can be admitted in evidence. They are (i) the copy of the judgment is certified by the legal keeper thereof (ii) there must be a certificate under the seal of a Notary Public or an Indian Consul or diplomatic agent certifying that the copy is certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original and (iii) proof of character of the document according to the law of the foreign country. If these conditions are complied with the document may be presumed to be genuine and accurate. 5. The proof required under S.78(6) is for the purpose of enabling the court to decide whether the document is one which falls within the definition of a public document in S.74 of the Evidence Act. The provisions contained in S.86 of the Act are imperative and must be complied with. In the absence of the certification referred to in that section a foreign judgment is not admissible in evidence. S.78(6) makes it clear that apart from the two certificates viz., one by the legal keeper of the original document and the other by the Indian Consul or diplomatic agent shall also be proved the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country. In case where the matter is self evident the court need not insist upon proof. Proof can be by direct or circumstantial evidence. Proof can also be adduced by placing facts giving rights to presumption. In case where the matter is self evident the court need not insist upon proof. Proof can be by direct or circumstantial evidence. Proof can also be adduced by placing facts giving rights to presumption. When a foreign judgment is relied on S.14 of the Civil, Procedure Code enables the court to draw a presumption that the court which pronounced the judgment had jurisdiction unless the contrary appears on the record. The production of the copy of the judgment duly authenticated is therefore presumptive evidence. Such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction. The presumption of genuineness and accuracy in respect of a certified copy of a judicial record can be drawn under S.80 of the Act if there is certification in the manner provided therein. These provisions will enable the court to draw a presumption regarding genuineness and accuracy of the copy of the judgment. On matters which are self evident the court need not insist upon further proof and proof of any condition to be complied with in a case of this nature can be by direct or circumstantial evidence. 6. It is not disputed that the first two conditions are not complied with viz., certificate by the legal keeper and the certificate under the seal of a Notary Public or of an Indian Consul or diplomatic agent. Learned counsel for revision petitioners points out the non-compliance of the third condition viz., proof of character of the document according to the law of the foreign country. This also is one of the conditions precedent to be complied with by the plaintiff in order to get the document" admitted and proved. The question arises as to whether the document shows its character if it is presumed to be genuine and accurate. 7. This also is one of the conditions precedent to be complied with by the plaintiff in order to get the document" admitted and proved. The question arises as to whether the document shows its character if it is presumed to be genuine and accurate. 7. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider this question in the decision in AIR 1964 SC 538 - Badat and Company v. East India Trading Company - Suba Rao, J. (as his Lordship then was) in his minority judgment (no opinion was expressed by the majority on this point) held that the document may be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is the requisite certificate viz., a certificate issued any legislation of the Central Government in the concerned country to the effect that the said document was certified in the manner commonly in use in that country for the certification of copies of judicial record. It was further held that the requisite certificate makes the document admissible and if there was such a certificate the document may be presumed to be genuine and accurate. While considering whether the certificate shows its character viz., that it is a ' genuine judgment. It was held "if it is presumed to be genuine and accurate, it shows its character viz., that it is a genuine judgment made by the Supreme Court of New York." That was found to be a fit case for raising the said presumption and with the aid of the presumption the third condition viz., proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country was also found to have been complied with. In other words on proof of the first two conditions the Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York was made in accordance with law. In that manner all the three conditions laid down in S.78(6) of the Evidence Act were found to have been fulfilled. Ultimately it was held that the document can legitimately be admitted in evidence and if it is admitted the document by its own force establishes that the above said three conditions for the enforce ability of the award have been fulfilled. 8. Ultimately it was held that the document can legitimately be admitted in evidence and if it is admitted the document by its own force establishes that the above said three conditions for the enforce ability of the award have been fulfilled. 8. Applying the principle enunciated in the decision of the Supreme Court referred above it has to be held that all the three conditions laid down in S.78(6) of the Evidence Act had been fulfilled in this case. The first two conditions are admittedly complied with. On such compliance the document can be presumed to be genuine and accurate. If it is presumed to be genuine and accurate it shows its character viz., that it was made by the Dubai Civil Court. The document is therefore admissible in evidence. No error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Court below in admitting the document. No interference is therefore called for in revision. In the result the revision is dismissed, but without costs.