ORDER : K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. Whether interlocutory application for injunction is maintainable even before the admission of execution petition filed to execute a foreign judgment and decree is the core issue that arises for consideration in the application in A. No. 1245 of 2016 filed under Order XIV Rule 12 of Original Side Rules. The facts in outline:-- The applicant obtained a money decree against the Respondents 1 and 2 from the High Court of Justice, "Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court on 12 June 2012 in Claim No. 12. (Folio No.1439). Since the decree was not satisfied, the English Court passed a 'Worldwide Freezing Order' against the assets of respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as Judgment Debtors) on 10 July 2014. 2. The applicant filed proceedings before the Supreme Court of Seychelles to register the judgment passed by the English Court. The first applicant in the mean time initiated proceedings to declare him as insolvent. He was adjudged insolvent by the Supreme Court of Seychelles on 21 July 2014. The Official Receiver was appointed as the Receiver and Manager of the Estate of first respondent. Thereafter, by order dated 18 January 2016, the Supreme Court of Seychelles approved the post bankruptcy composition and cancelled the declaration of bankruptcy order against the first respondent. The applicant was a party to the order dated 18 January 2016. 3. The applicant thereafter filed the Execution Petition before the Master contending that with a view to defeat the decree, the first respondent has transferred his assets and the other respondents are in possession of the properties in Trust for the insolvent. The applicant filed interlocutory application under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC to injunct the respondents from alienating or encumbering the schedule properties pending disposal of the Execution Petition. The learned Master issued notice to the respondents in the application to grant leave to file execution petition and injunction, pending disposal of the leave to sue application. 4. The applicant filed Application No. 616 of 2016 before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Master issuing notice in the application to grant leave to file execution petition and injunction petition. 5. 4. The applicant filed Application No. 616 of 2016 before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Master issuing notice in the application to grant leave to file execution petition and injunction petition. 5. This Court dismissed the Application No. 616 of 2016 by order dated 3 March 2016 primarily on the ground that appeal under Order XIV Rule 12 CPC is not maintainable against the order passed by the Master issuing notice to the parties. 6. The applicant filed an application in O.A. No. 72 of 2016 along with Application No. 616 of 2016 to grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the immovable property shown in the schedule to the execution application. This Court granted a limited interim order without deciding the legal question raised by the respondents and directed the Master to decide the matter on merits. 7. This Court by order dated 3 March 2016, directed the Registry to post all the pending applications before the Master on 7 March 2016. However, it was posted only on 8 March 2016. Before the master, Thiru. A. Shamsudeen Raja, learned counsel, filed an unsigned memo, dated 8 March 2016 stating that though he took notice earlier on behalf of respondents 1 to 15 and undertook to file vakalath, he is now appearing only on behalf of respondents 3, 4, 6 and 12. The learned Master simply made an endorsement on the memo and notes paper, without even opening the memo to ascertain as to whether it was actually signed by the counsel. The learned Master refused to extend the interim order. The order dated 8 March 2016 reads thus:-- "Memo is filed by D/H counsel and respondents 3, 4, 6 and 12 is perused. The Hon High Court ordered it is for the master to take a decision on merits with regard to the extension of interim order beyond 8.3.16. On perusal of records its not numbered. Considering all these aspects, this Court comes to a conclusion that the extension of interim order is not necessary because of the Ep is not numbered. Hence interim order is not extended. Counter of R-3, 4, 6 and 12. Call on 16.3.2016." 8. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8 March 2016, the applicant is before this Court. The submissions:-- 9. Hence interim order is not extended. Counter of R-3, 4, 6 and 12. Call on 16.3.2016." 8. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8 March 2016, the applicant is before this Court. The submissions:-- 9. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned Master without even hearing the submissions of parties, passed the impugned order, without supplementing reasons. According to the learned counsel, in case injunction is not extended, the respondents would alienate the properties and in which case, it would not be possible to execute the foreign decree. The learned counsel by placing reliance on Order 21 Rule 22CPC, contended that notice in an execution petition is only optional. It is open to the executing Court to take the execution petition on file and to decide as to whether notice should be issued to the judgment debtor before issuing any process in execution of the decree. Order 21 Rule 23 CPC was relied on to contend that in case the judgment debtor failed to appear, the Court is entitled to order execution of the decree. It was submitted that the applicant filed an application for leave only by way of abundant caution and as such, non registration of the execution petition cannot be taken as a ground now to reject the application for interim injunction as not maintainable. The learned counsel therefore seeks an order of injunction after setting aside the order passed by the Master. DISCUSSION:-- 10. The applicant filed A. No. 473 of 2016 before the Master under Order XXI Rule 22 read with Order XXXIX Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules to grant leave to execute the foreign judgment and decree in Claim No. 2012 in Folio No. 1439, dated 12 June 2014, passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench, Division Commercial Court. The learned Master issued notice on 3 February 2016. The applicant filed an application for injunction, pending disposal of the application to grant leave. The learned Master issued notice in the said application to the respondents 16 to 18, after recording the appearance of respondents 1 to 15 through counsel. 11. The order issuing notice was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court in A. No. 616 of 2016. 12. The applicant filed another Application in O.A. No. 72 of 2016 for injunction, pending disposal of the Application in A. No. 616 of 2016. 13. 11. The order issuing notice was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court in A. No. 616 of 2016. 12. The applicant filed another Application in O.A. No. 72 of 2016 for injunction, pending disposal of the Application in A. No. 616 of 2016. 13. This Court passed separate orders in A. No. 72 of 2016 and the related applications, filed by a third party for impleading. The order dated 3 March 2016 in A. No. 72 of 2016 reads thus:-- "11. This Court granted an order of interim injunction on 10.02.2016 taking into account the submission made by Sri. P.J. Rishikesh, the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents have no intention of alienating or encumbering the properties shown in the schedule. It was granted pending disposal of the appeal filed under Order XIV Rule 12. Now that I have arrived at a conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable against an order issuing notice, there is no question of extending the interim order indefinitely. However, with a view to balance the equity, I consider it appropriate to extend the order of interim injunction till 08.03.2016. The matter shall be listed before the Master on 07.03.2016. It is for the learned Master to take a decision on merits with regard to the extension of interim order beyond 08.03.2016." 14. When the applications were taken up for hearing on 8 March 2016, the learned Master declined to extend the interim order beyond 8 March 2016. 15. It is not in dispute that the master is empowered to grant an order of injunction in execution petition by virtue of the power vested in him under Order XIV Rule 10 (XXXVII)of the Original Side Rules. However, the moot question is whether interlocutory application for injunction is maintainable even before the grant of leave to file execution petition and registration of a comprehensive petition for execution. 16. Section 13 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that 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. There are six exceptions to the said rule as enumerated therein. 16. Section 13 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that 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. There are six exceptions to the said rule as enumerated therein. There is a statutory presumption under Section 14 CPC that the Court shall presume on production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Burden is therefore essentially on the judgment debtor to demonstrate that there is no basis for such presumption in the subject case and the foreign judgment produced by the decree holder is not conclusive. 17. Section 44A of CPC provides for execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territories. As per the said provision, in case certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree is capable of execution as if it had been passed by the District Court. 18. Order 21 Rule 11(2) CPC provides for making application for execution of decree. Order 21 Rule 22 CPC provides for issuance of notice to the judgment debtor to show case as to why the decree should not be executed against him. Similarly, Order 39 Rule 1 of the Original Side rules deals with application for the execution of decrees. 19. The applicant filed A. No. 473 of 2016, seeking grant of leave to execute the foreign judgment and decree. The contention now is that no such leave is necessary, that the execution petition requires to be registered straightaway and the only requirement is to decide as to whether notice should be issued to the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC. 20. The decree in question was passed by the English Court. There is a statutory presumption in favour of the decree. The applicant filed the decree under Section 44A CPC before the Master. There should be a formal application under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of CPC for execution of the Judgment and Decree passed by the English Court. 20. The decree in question was passed by the English Court. There is a statutory presumption in favour of the decree. The applicant filed the decree under Section 44A CPC before the Master. There should be a formal application under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of CPC for execution of the Judgment and Decree passed by the English Court. It is a matter of record that the applicant after filing the foreign decree under Section 44A of CPC before the Master, filed an application for execution accompanied by another application to grant leave. The legal precedent:-- 21. The question whether before executing a foreign Judgment and Decree, the decree holder is required to take leave came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in Algemene Bank Nederland NV v. Satish Dayalal Choksi, AIR 1990 Bombay 170. Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. (as Her Lordship then was), held that leave is necessary for executing a foreign decree filed under Section 44A of CPC. The relevant observation reads thus:-- "33.... An application under Order 21, rule 22, is certainly a step for the purpose of enforcing a judgment. Under Order 21, rule 11, every application for execution of a decree shall be in writing signed and verified by the applicant and shall contain, inter alia, various particulars including the mode in which the assistance of the court is required. Under Order 21, rule 22, inter alia, where an application for execution of a foreign decree is filed under the provisions of section 44A, leave is necessary. Therefore, before any leave can be obtained under Order 21, rule 22, it is necessary to make an application under Order 21, rule 11. These are, therefore, clearly proceedings for the purpose of enforcing a foreign judgment." 22. There are two stages insofar as the execution of a foreign decree under Section 44A of CPC is concerned. The first stage is the filing of judgment and decree passed by the foreign Court before the executing Court. Section 44-A(2) mandates that along with the decree, a certificate shall also be produced from the foreign Court, stating the extent to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted. Such a certificate is a conclusive proof of the extent of satisfaction or adjustment of the decree. The next stage is the process of execution of decree by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 11(2) CPC. 23. Such a certificate is a conclusive proof of the extent of satisfaction or adjustment of the decree. The next stage is the process of execution of decree by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 11(2) CPC. 23. The executing court is required to grant leave to file execution petition instituted under Section 44A of CPC. Order 21 Rule 22(b) CPC very clearly says that in case application is for execution of a decree filed under Section 44A of CPC, notice is mandatory. In fact, it was only for the said purpose, the applicant filed the application to grant leave. 24. The contention taken by the learned counsel that Order 21 Rule 22 CPC is only directory has no basis. The decree holder seeking execution of a decree has to file an application under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of CPC. In case it is a foreign judgment, such an application can be filed only after filing the decree of the reciprocating territory within the meaning of Section 13 of CPC. It is only when the application for execution is admitted, the execution petition would be numbered. Thereafter, the executing court would take a decision to issue show cause notice to the judgment debtor. Though a discretion is given to the executing court not to issue show cause notice in case the decree is of recent origin and application is made within two years, no such discretion is available in the case of a foreign decree filed for execution under Section 44A of CPC. This is made clear by Order 21 Rule 22(b) of CPC. The Court is bound to issue notice to the foreign judgment debtor before issuing process for execution of foreign decree. 25. The Supreme Court in M.V. Al-Quatnar v. Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd., (2000) 8 SCC 278 , observed that Section 44A permits the foreign judgment debtor to challenge the foreign decree even before the execution court, being the District Court in India, on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13of CPC. 26. The process of execution is not a matter of course in this matter. 26. The process of execution is not a matter of course in this matter. The respondents 1 to 15 in the earlier round of litigation in A. No. 616 of 2016, raised a legal issue that the English judgment is not executable in India, in view of the order dated 18 January 2016, passed by the Supreme Court of Seychelles. The applicant was a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Seychelles. The applicant opposed the prayer for post bankruptcy composition mooted by the first respondent. The Supreme Court of Seychelles rejected the objection of the applicant and approved the composition as accepted by the majority of creditors. The order passed by the insolvency Court is binding on the applicant. The applicant has taken up a contention that the insolvency law in Seychelles is different from the Indian law and as such, the case would not attract the exceptions to Section 13 of CPC. These are all issues pending adjudication before the Master. Therefore, it is clear that grant of leave to file execution petition is not automatic. 27. The next question is whether the applicant is entitled to an order of interim injunction during the currency of the application seeking grant of leave to file execution petition. The execution petition is yet to be numbered. It is only after the grant of leave, the execution petition would be taken on file by the Master. Binding legal precedents:-- 28. The question as to whether without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, it is open to the Court to pass an interim order, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Somdeb Bandyopadhayay, (2009) 2 SCC 694 . The Supreme Court held that such a course is not legally permissible. "7. It is to be noticed that even without condoning the delay and entertaining the writ appeal the High Court has passed a series of interim orders. Such a course is impermissible as the appeal was non est in the eye of the law without it being entertained." 29. In D.G.P. Central Reserve Police Force, v. P.M. Ramalilngam, 2009(1) SCC 193 , pending decision regarding maintainability of the review petition, High Court passed an interim order to permit the enquiry proceedings to go on and to keep the final decision in abeyance. In D.G.P. Central Reserve Police Force, v. P.M. Ramalilngam, 2009(1) SCC 193 , pending decision regarding maintainability of the review petition, High Court passed an interim order to permit the enquiry proceedings to go on and to keep the final decision in abeyance. The Supreme Court observed that such a course is not permissible in law. 30. When it is made out that even for issuing process for execution, notice is mandatory, there is no question of passing an interim order of injunction pending disposal of the application to grant leave to file execution petition. 31. This Court earlier granted injunction without deciding the legal questions, including maintainability of execution petition. No reliance could be placed on the earlier order in view of the legal question raised now with regard to the maintainability of the application for injunction. Before granting leave to file execution petition, on consideration of the executability of the foreign judgment and decree in the light of the order dated 18 January 2016 passed by the Supreme Court of Seychelles, it would not be legally permissible to take up the injunction petition. 32. The learned master dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the execution petition is yet to be admitted. Though reasons were not supplemented, still, it cannot be said that the learned Master erred by declining to extend the interim order. I am therefore of the view that there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Master warranting interference by exercising the jurisdiction under Order XIV Rule 12 of Original Side Rules. 33. The learned master is directed to decide the pending application to grant leave on merits and as per law without in any way being influenced by the observation made in this order with respect to the executability of foreign judgment and decree, on account of the order dated 18 January 2016, passed by the Supreme Court of Seychelles, accepting the post bankruptcy composition. Summary of decision:-- 34. In view of the reasons aforesaid, I hold that the interlocutory application for injunction is not maintainable before granting leave to execute the foreign judgment and decree, against a foreign judgment debtor. In the upshot, I dismiss the applications in A. Nos. 1245 of 2016 and 138 of 2016. No costs.