JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. The respondent moved an application under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking execution of a foreign judgment against the present petitioner (Judgment Debtor). The petitioner filed objections to the execution petition. Learned Executing Court dismissed the objections on 24.04.2023. Aggrieved, the Judgment Debtor (JD) has instituted the instant revision petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter according to their status before the leaned Trial Court. 2. Facts 2(i) The respondent-DH filed an execution petition on 23.10.2021. This execution petition under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC was for enforcement of a judgment and decree dated 10.04.2021 passed by learned Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance. The Decree Holder’s case was that his suit had been decreed on 10.04.2021 by the learned Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance to the tune of Rs. 66,21,196/-. The decree, therefore, was required to be executed by recovering the decretal amount by attachment of moveable and immoveable property of the JD. 2(ii) The judgment debtor-JD filed objections to the execution petition that :- (i) The foreign judgment in question is not legally executable against the JD (ii) The DH had not suffered any kind of monetary loss because of any willful act of the JD ; (iii) The DH had actually forged the two post dated cheques mentioned in the execution petition & (iv) The cheques in question were not dishonoured because of any malafide intention of the JD. 2(iii) Learned Executing Court considered the pleadings and submissions made for the parties. After thorough consideration of the matter, the objections of the JD were turned down on 24.04.2023. It is in the aforesaid background that the JD has assailed the order dated 24.04.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/JD has raised following points for assailing the order dated 24.04.2023 :- (i) The foreign decree in question was not passed on the merits of the matter, hence was not executable. Principles of natural justice were violated in passing of the foreign decree, therefore, the decree could not have been executed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/JD has raised following points for assailing the order dated 24.04.2023 :- (i) The foreign decree in question was not passed on the merits of the matter, hence was not executable. Principles of natural justice were violated in passing of the foreign decree, therefore, the decree could not have been executed. (ii) The execution petition filed by the DH was not in consonance with the provisions of CPC inasmuch as the certified copy of the judgment and decree had not been filed by the DH and also different dates of pronouncement of the judgment figured in the documents enclosed by the decree holder. 4. Consideration I have heard learned counsel for the JD (petitioner) as also learned Senior counsel for the DH (respondent) on the above points at length. To avoid repetition, the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties are being considered & discussed hereinafter :- 4(i) Since questions have been raised for the JD (petitioner) about the executability of foreign decree in question, it would be appropriate to first refer to relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4(i)(a) Section 44A of the CPC provides for execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory as under :- “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 out- side 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 penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.” In the instant case, the judgment and decree sought to be executed was passed by the learned Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance. Admittedly, the Court of First Instance alongwith other Courts situated in Dubai has been notified as superior Courts for the purpose of Section 44A(3) vide notification dated 17.01.2020 issued by Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) Government of India. Section 44A(3) CPC provides that 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. 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 the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13. 4(ii) The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner (JD) is that English translation of the judgment and decree sought to be executed, as provided by the DH gives the impression that the decree was passed on 10.4.2012/10.04.2020, whereas in the execution petition, the DH has prayed for enforcement of the foreign judgment and decree dated 10.04.2021. That in view of different dates of the judgment and decree figuring in the translated copy of the foreign decree, the execution of such a judgment and decree is not permissible. That in view of different dates of the judgment and decree figuring in the translated copy of the foreign decree, the execution of such a judgment and decree is not permissible. Learned Senior Counsel for the DH has fairly submitted that at one place in the translated copy of the judgment and decree, the date of decree is mentioned as 10.04.2012 and at the other place as 10.04.2020 ; However, these two dates are inadvertent typographical errors as it is writ large from the complete set of certified copy of the judgment and decree in question alongwith its English translation that the same was passed on 10.04.2021. There is substance in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the D.H. that the aforesaid two dates in the translation of certified copy of the judgment and decree sought to be enforced are typographical abrasions. The English translation of the judgment and decree in question alongwith its certified copy reflects that the date of submission/presentation of the case was 10.11.2020. The power of attorney was submitted on 10.11.2020. The financial documents were submitted on 10.11.2020. The memo was presented to the Judge on 11.11.2020. It was on 11.11.2020 that the concerned Judge passed the order that “the plaintiff shall investigate the defendant and notifying it in the light of the investigation provided that the request shall be presented after five days from the day following the execution of the notification”. The matter thereafter was listed before the concerned Court on 19.02.2021 for issuance of notification by publication. On 29.03.2021, the applicant sought “for exequatur of interim or expeditious judgment or decision”. It was again listed before the competent Court on 04.04.2021 and thereafter on 07.04.2021. The case was finally decided on 10.04.2021. It would be appropriate to give out the table of dates alongwith particulars in sequence as laid out in the English translation of certified copy of the foreign judgment in question. It was again listed before the competent Court on 04.04.2021 and thereafter on 07.04.2021. The case was finally decided on 10.04.2021. It would be appropriate to give out the table of dates alongwith particulars in sequence as laid out in the English translation of certified copy of the foreign judgment in question. “Writ of Debt 4942/2020/60 Method of presenting data according to Date of submission The parties Type of document Date of submission Document presenter Presentation 171166/2020-Personal ID 10/11/202002:33:00 Statement presenters 171166/2020-Personal ID 10/11/2020 02:33:00 Statement presenters 171166/2020-Power of attorney 10/11/2020 02:33:00 Statement presenters 171166/2020-Financial document 10/11/2020 02:33:00 Statement presenters The result of Tabligh Company’s notification 19/11/2020 12:00:00 53446/2020 – notification paper 24/02/2021 05:51:00 Documents presenters The result of Tabligh Company’s notification 21/04/2021 12.00:00 Showing the results from 1 to 7 out of total of 7 results. Number of results per page 7. Notification Showing details Notifications by publications Showing details Decisions and minutes of trial sessions Writ of Debt 4942/2020/60 Decision No. Date of decision Decision wording Type of basic decision Detailed decision type Type of decision/minutes There is no current data for this Case Smart demands Concealing the details Demand No. Demand subject Demand date Demand text Applicant 1 Memo presented to the judge 11/11/2020 We present to Your Excellency case of payment order Decision details Decision Number Decision wording Decision date Decision taker 1 The plaintiff shall investigate the defendant and notifying it in the light of the investigation, provided that the request shall be presented after five days from the day following the execution of the notification. 11/11/2020 Judge/Hamda Abdullah Qatami AI Suwaidi 2 Request for notification by publication 19/02/2021 Whereas the defendant in the above-mentioned Case, whose domicile and place of work is unknown as well as his address is unknown, and whereas the investigation was made about the defendant and the result of the investigations was negative and did not bring anything new, so the applicant requests the court to approve his notification by publication, the investigation letter is attached Mr./Abdulaziz Muhammad Abdullah Muhammad Khalfan Al Zaabi 3 Demand for exequatur of interim or expeditious judgment or decision 29/03/2021 The applicant seek petition from the court to receive the exequatur for registering the execution file. The notification bu publication is attached after full notification in the verdict Mr./Abdulazi z Muhammad Abdullah Muhammad Khalfan Al Zaabi 4 Request for determination/expedit ion/adjournment of the session date 04/04/2021 The applicant requests your justice to issue a decision in the above case, whereas the last decision of the judge was to permit for notifying the defendant by publication, issued on 20/02/2021, and whereas the defendant was notified by publication on 24/02/2021, the notification was archived in the documents on 24/02/2021, so we seek petition from Your Excellency to issue a decision in the said case, within full respect 5 Request for filing a document 04/04/2021 The applicant seeks petition from the court to agree to filing (the defendant’s notification by publication) in the above case, as the judge’s decision to authorize the notification by publication was on 20/02/2021, and the notification was archived in the case on 24/02/2021. Accordingly, we ask Your Excellency to archive the defendant’s notification until the decision is issued in the case, attached to Your Excellency the notification by publication, with full respect. Mr./Abdulazi z Muhammad Abdullah Muhammad Khalfan Al Zaabi 6 Memo of presenting a message to the judge 07/04/2021 Please Your Excellency review the demand and take decisio Mr./Abdulazi z Muhammad Abdullah Muhammad Khalfan Al Zaabi Decision No. Decision wording Decision date Decision taker 5 The court ordered in a commercial article : Obligating the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 312,500 AED (three hundred and twelve thousand and five hundred Dirhams), and the legal interest 5% from the due date of each cheque until the full payment, alongside with the charges and expenses and refused the other demands. The court states that the demand for expeditiously self-executing is unjustified so it decided to refuse it. 10/04/2020 Judge/Hamda Abdullah Qatami Al Suwaidi 2 Request for notification with designating the required way of notification 13/04/2021 The applicant request the court to approve the notification of the socalled/Kartik Singh in the above case, whereas the decision was issued by the judge on 10/04/2021 (Obligating the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 312,500 AED (three hundred and twelve thousand and five hundred Dirhams), and the legal interest 5% from the due date of each cheque until the full payment, alongside with the charges and expenses and refused the other demands. The court states that the demand for expeditiously self-executing is unjustified so it decided to refuse it). Therefore, we seek to notify it in the decision by e-mail:- Kartiksingh9211@icloud.com Mobile: 056/6431061- 055- 1671693/ As it was notified before on its e-mail. With full respect Mr./Abdulaziz Muhammad Abdullah Muhammad Khalfan Al Zaabi Decision details 6. The notification of payment order decision shall be permitted on the number and e-mail included in the application 13/04/2021 Mr./Nasser Abdullah Al Abdooli 8. Request for putting exequatur of erdict or decision settled for litigation 19/05/2021 The applicant requests the court to receive the exequatur to register the execution filr, the full notification by publication is attached, with full respect Abdulaziz Muhammad Abdullah Muhammad Khalfan Al Zaabi In fact the objection of there being two different dates of decree recorded in the English translation of the certified copy of foreign judgment had not even been taken by the J.D. in his objections filed to the execution petition. A reading of the impugned order gives an impression that this point was also not urged before the learned executing Court. Be that as it may. From a perusal of above discussion & the tables, it becomes quite clear that the date 10.04.2020 typed out as the decision date at one place and 10.04.2021 at another place are inadvertent typographical errors in the English translation of the foreign judgment. The judgment and decree was passed by the Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance on 10.04.2021. 4(iii) The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-J.D. is that the foreign decree in question cannot be considered to be a decision on merits of the matter, hence, it is not executable in view of Section 13(b) of the CPC. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent- DH has urged that the judgment and decree in question does not suffer from any vice or limitation mentioned in Section 13 CPC. Section 13 CPC specifies the circumstances where foreign judgments are held not conclusive. The Section goes as under :- “13. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent- DH has urged that the judgment and decree in question does not suffer from any vice or limitation mentioned in Section 13 CPC. Section 13 CPC specifies the circumstances where foreign judgments are held not conclusive. The Section goes as under :- “13. When foreign judgment 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 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].” 4(iii)(a) According to learned counsel for the petitioner-JD :- the judgment and decree in question had not been rendered on the merits of the matter and the proceeding in which the judgment was passed, was opposed to principles of natural justice ; The case, therefore, falls under Clauses (b) and (d) of Section 13 ; Hence, the foreign judgment is not conclusive & thus inexecutable. In support of such submission, reliance was placed on following paragraph from (2001) 5 SCC 265 (International Woollen Mills Vs. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd. :- “32. On the basis of this law let us now see whether the present decree is a decree on merits. It is to be seen that between the parties there is a controversy whether the Appellant/defendant was at all served. As stated above it is not necessary for us to resolve this controversy. For the purposes of this Order only we will presume that the Appellant had been served. Facts on record disclose that before service was effected an affidavit had been filed in the English Court by one Kaashif Basit, Solicitor for the Respondent, to which affidavit had been annexed copies of the invoice and other relevant documents. For the purposes of this Order only we will presume that the Appellant had been served. Facts on record disclose that before service was effected an affidavit had been filed in the English Court by one Kaashif Basit, Solicitor for the Respondent, to which affidavit had been annexed copies of the invoice and other relevant documents. On the basis of this affidavit an order in the following terms came to be passed : "UPON reading the Affidavit of Kaashif Basit sworn 20 January 1998 IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff be at liberty to serve the Summons in this action on the Defendant at 31, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana-141003, Punjab, India, or elsewhere in India, and that the time for acknowledging service shall be 23 days after service of the Summons on the Defendant." This shows that leave to serve the Appellant was granted after reading the affidavit. Thus at this stage the Court had presumably seen the documents annexed thereto. The Court has been careful enough to note that it had read the affidavit. However, at this stage, only a prima facie opinion was being formed. Thereafter the said Mr. Kaashif Basit, Solicitor for the Respondent had filed an affidavit of service stating that service had been effected on one Yash Paul, who is claimed to be an employee of the Appellant. To this Affidavit also all relevant documents were annexed. Thereafter no documents are tendered nor any evidence led. The English Court then pronounces the judgment and decree, which has been set out herein above. It does not even say that the second Affidavit had been read. This Judgment and decree does not indicate whether any documents were looked into and/or whether the merits of the case was at all considered. It merely grants to the Respondent a decree for the amounts mentioned therein. To be noted that the Appellant had, by his letter dated 8th November, 1997, replied to the Notice of the Respondent dated 18th October, 1997. In this reply it had been mentioned that goods were of inferior quality and not as per con- tract. Court has not applied its mind or dealt with this aspect. It has not examined points at controversy between the parties. It is given ex-parte as Appellant did not appear at hearing of Suit. In this reply it had been mentioned that goods were of inferior quality and not as per con- tract. Court has not applied its mind or dealt with this aspect. It has not examined points at controversy between the parties. It is given ex-parte as Appellant did not appear at hearing of Suit. It is not a judgment on merits.” 4(iii)(b) The argument of learned counsel for the J.D. does not hold much substance. This is for the following reasons :- a. The case of the respondent-DH was that :- The D.H. had opened an online account with a Trading Firm of Dubai ; He made some profit ; The D.H. was introduced to the J.D. who offered to trade on DH’s account and assured to make good profit every month. Believing the J.D., the D.H. handed over the account to him. The J.D., however, incurred huge loss ; The J.D. assured the D.H. of profit and requested him to deposit some more money in the account. Acting on the assurances of the J.D., the D.H. after arranging money, gave 50,000 USD to the J.D. In lieu thereof, the J.D. issued two post dated cheques valuing approximately Rs. 61.5 lacs. Later on, the cheques were taken back and the J.D. issued fresh cheques valuing Rs. 62.5 lacs. The D.H. presented these cheques to his bankers at Dubai. The same were dishonoured. He filed criminal case against the J.D. before the Court of competent jurisdiction in Dubai. Vide judgment dated November, 2020, the J.D. was ordered to be jailed for 3 months. In November, 2020, the D.H. filed the civil suit for recovery of the cheque amount which was decreed on 10.04.2021. b. The English translation of the certified copy of the judgment and decree shows that the judgment was passed on consideration of the documents presented by the plaintiff-DH. The table of dates and particulars extracted earlier lends credence to this fact. Merely because the J.D. was proceeded ex-parte, cannot lead to an automatic interference that the foreign judgment had not been passed on merits. The decision in International Woollen Mills case (supra) is distinguishable on facts. The English translation of foreign judgment shows that in the instant case, the D.H. had made efforts to serve the J.D. through the process of Court. The allegation of violation of principles of natural justice remains a bald and unsubstantiated allegation. The decision in International Woollen Mills case (supra) is distinguishable on facts. The English translation of foreign judgment shows that in the instant case, the D.H. had made efforts to serve the J.D. through the process of Court. The allegation of violation of principles of natural justice remains a bald and unsubstantiated allegation. The J.D. could not be served. He was served by way of publication through process of Court. The D.H. in his suit for recovery of the amount, had placed on record the evidence, i.e. the cheques in question and their dishonour by the bank concerned. His claim was under the provisions of Article 338 of the Civil Transaction Law of the Country in question. On consideration of his case, the documents presented and the evidence, the judgment was passed. It cannot be said that such a decision was not on merits of the matter. The Apex Court has held in International Woollen case (supra) that it cannot be said that a decision on merits is possible only in cases where the defendant enters appearance and contests the plaintiff’s claim. Even where the defendant chooses to remain ex-parte and keeps out, it is possible for the plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of his claim(and such evidence is generally insisted on by the courts in India), so that the court may give a decision on the merits of his case after a due consideration of such evidence instead of dispensing with such consideration and giving a decree merely on account of the default of appearance of the defendant. In this case, though the JD-petitioner chose not to appear before the Court, the decision so pronounced by the Court has to be considered as rendered on merits as the documents presented by the DH-plaintiff were considered by the concerned Court leading to passing of the judgment and decree. 4(iv) The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the execution petition was not filed in accordance with provisions of Civil Procedure Code. For deciding this, it would be profitable to refer to Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code :- “14. 4(iv) The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the execution petition was not filed in accordance with provisions of Civil Procedure Code. For deciding this, it would be profitable to refer to Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code :- “14. 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 of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.” In (2017) 2 SCC 253 Alcon Electronics Private Limited Vs. Celem S.A. OF FOS 34320 Roujan, France and another, Hon’ble Apex Court held that a foreign judgment which has become final & conclusive between the parties is not impeachable either on facts or law except on limited grounds enunciated under Section 13 CPC. Under Section 14 CPC, there is a presumption that the Foreign Court which passed the order is a Court of competent jurisdiction which of course is a rebuttable presumption. The Apex Court in para 13 of the judgment, held as under :- “13. It appears that the appellant herein has accepted the order and sought for time to pay the costs. Moreover, it did not choose to approach the appellate Court assailing the order and the same has attained finality. In spite of the same, the appellant filed the application opposing the execution petition filed by the respondents. The first and foremost ground of attack against the order passed by the English Court is that the order is not conclusive as per Section 13(b), CPC. Such argument appears to be attractive but we are not able to appreciate the same in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before we proceed further, it is appropriate to have a look at Sections 13 and 14 of CPC which read as under: “…………………………………………...” 14. A plain reading of Section 13, CPC would show that to be conclusive an order or decree must have been obtained after following the due judicial process by giving reasonable notice and opportunity to all the proper and necessary parties to put forth their case. When once these requirements are fulfilled, the executing Court cannot enquire into the validity, legality or otherwise of the judgment. 15. When once these requirements are fulfilled, the executing Court cannot enquire into the validity, legality or otherwise of the judgment. 15. A glance on the enforcement of the foreign judgment, the position at common law is very clear that a foreign judgment which has become final and conclusive between the parties is not impeachable either on facts or law except on limited grounds enunciated under Section 13, CPC. In construing Section 13, CPC we have to look at the plain meaning of the words and expressions used therein and need not look at any other factors. Further, under Section 14, CPC there is a presumption that the Foreign Court which passed the order is a Court of competent jurisdiction which of course is a rebuttable presumption. In the present case, the appellant does not dispute the jurisdiction of the English Court but its grievance is, it is not executable on other grounds which are canvassed before us. 16. The appellant contends that the order of the English Court is not given on merits and that it falls under Section 13(c) of the CPC as a result of which it is not conclusive and therefore inexecutable. We cannot accept such submission. A judgment can be considered as a judgment passed on merits when the Court deciding the case gives opportunity to the parties to the case to put forth their case and after considering the rival submissions, gives its decision in the form of an order or judgment, it is certainly an order on merits of the case in the context of interpretation of Section 13(c) of the CPC. 17. Applying the same analogy to the facts of the case on hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the English Court is an order on merits. The appellant who has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Court and on its own requested the Court to assess the costs summarily. While passing a reasoned order by dismissing the application filed by the appellant, English Court granted the costs against the appellant. Had it been the case where appellant’s application was allowed and costs were awarded to it, it would have as well filed a petition for the execution of the order. Be that as it is, the appellant did not prefer any appeal and indeed sought time to pay the costs. Had it been the case where appellant’s application was allowed and costs were awarded to it, it would have as well filed a petition for the execution of the order. Be that as it is, the appellant did not prefer any appeal and indeed sought time to pay the costs. The appellant, therefore, cannot be permitted to object the execution. It cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. In our opinion, it is a pure abuse of process of law and the Courts should be very cautious in entertaining such petitions.” In the instant case, the J.D. has not led any evidence whatsoever in the execution petition to rebut the presumption available under Section 14 CPC to the document propounded by the decree holder as certified copy of the foreign judgment passed by a competent Dubai Court. It is the J.D.-petitioner who has disputed the executability, validity of the foreign judgment sought to be executed by the D.H. It is the J.D. who is disputing even the authenticity of the certified copy of the foreign judgment. The execution petition was filed by the D.H. on 23.10.2021. The order sheets passed by the executing Court do not reflect that the J.D. requested for leading any evidence to dispel the presumption attached to the foreign judgment and decree or to prove his contentions. The onus was upon him to prove his allegations, which he miserably failed to do. 4(v) The D.H. in his suit filed before the Dubai Commercial Court of First Instance, had prayed for recovery of the amount due to him under the two cheques given to him by the J.D. which on presentation had been dishonoured. Section 137 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides that “the law of any foreign country regarding promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques shall be presumed to be the same as that of India, unless and until the contrary is proved”. The procedure being applied by the Foreign Court was similar to the procedure provided under Order 37 CPC. Nothing has been produced on record by the J.D. to prove contrary. In fact, the judgment debtor/petitioner has not even specifically disputed either the issuance of cheques in question or their dishonor by the bank on presentation by the respondent-decree holder. 5. The procedure being applied by the Foreign Court was similar to the procedure provided under Order 37 CPC. Nothing has been produced on record by the J.D. to prove contrary. In fact, the judgment debtor/petitioner has not even specifically disputed either the issuance of cheques in question or their dishonor by the bank on presentation by the respondent-decree holder. 5. The upshot of above discussion is that, the J.D.-petitioner has not substantiated his contentions (objections) that the foreign judgment and decree in question, of which the execution has been sought by the respondent-DH, was not rendered on merits of the case or that principles of natural justice were violated during the proceedings in the foreign Court. The petitioner could also not dispel the presumption attached to the foreign judgment under Section 14 CPC. For all the reasons discussed in para 4 above, the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or material irregularity. This petition is accordingly dismissed alongwith the pending applications, if any.