' On 18-3-2005, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, injunction, recovery and damages with the following prayers:- "(1) The Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the judgment/decree dated 29-12-2002 obtained by the defendant fraudulently through manipulation, and by presenting false statements of accounts before the foreign Court, is null and void and of no legal effect.
(2) The defendant may be permanently restrained from taking any action whatsoever, against the plaintiff on the basis of the impugned judgment/decree dated 29-12-2002.
(3) For a money decree against defendant for Dirham 60,000 being refund of excess interest charged, along with profit at an appropriate rate from December, 1995 till the date the amount is paid finally.
(4) For a decree directing the defendant to pay Dirham 5 million as token of damages caused, to the plaintiff on account of loss of business and opportunity.
(5) Any other relief that this Honourable Court may allow and deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(6) Cost of the suit."
2. The main prayer of the plaintiff is that the foreign judgment and decree, dated 29-12-2002 may be declared as void and of no legal effect as fraud was committed upon the said Court. A preliminary question was raised about the maintainability and jurisdiction of the Court. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has stated that under section 13 of C.P.C. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 13, C.P.C. Reads as under:-- "When foreign judgment not conclusive.--- A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same 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 recognize the law of Pakistan 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; (0 where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in Pakistan.
3. A perusal of this section reveals that a presumption is attached to the foreign judgment on the points mentioned therein and certain exceptions have also been shown in the section. Meaning there by that if a case falls within any of the clause of exceptions then such presumption cannot be attacked. Presumption of conclusiveness is such presumption where the parties are not required to lead any evidence in proof of such facts. There are various types of presumptions under the law.
Some presumptions are rebuttable; some presumptions are unrebuttable and some presumptions are of conclusive nature. The presumption falling under the last category does not require any proof of such facts. Therefore, section 13 of C.P.C. Is in respect of different subject but it does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court to declare a foreign judgment illegal on the ground of fraud.
4. However, a foreign judgment can be used by the plaintiff in support of his claim or defendant as his defence. The foreign judgments under section 44-A(1) are executable if the judgments are passed by the Court of United Kingdom or any reciprocating territory of the countries having reciprocal arrangements with the Government of Pakistan. For that purpose the Government is required to issue notification mentioning the names of the countries and the Courts of such countries. As such foreign judgment can be produced as an evidence in proof of facts as mentioned in provisions of section 13, C.P.C. Thus section 13 of C.P.C. Does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court to entertain a suit to declare the foreign judgment illegal on the ground of fraud.
Therefore, the foreign judgment cannot be declared illegal on the ground of fraud, by this Court.
Thus this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on such plea.
5. Prayer clauses (2) and (4) of the plaint are consequential reliefs of the prayer clause (1). As the main prayer is not maintainable, therefore, its consequential reliefs are also not maintainable.
6. As regards the prayer mentioned in clause (4) it pertains to the jurisdiction of Banking Court as such the said prayer also cannot be granted.
7. Even otherwise a rule has been laid down under sections 12(2) of C.P.C. Wherein if a decree is challenged on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation of facts or want of jurisdiction then fresh suit is barred, therefore, the parties are required to approach the Court which passed the final judgment. When the fresh suit is barred under section 12(2), C.P.C. If a Court in Pakistan passes a decree then how a fresh suit can be entertain able by this Court on the ground of fraud when the decree is passed by a foreign Court. The said rule is also applicable in the present circumstances of the case, therefore, on this account also the present suit is barred under section 12(2), C.P.C. If the plaintiff wants to challenge the decree of a foreign Court then he may file appropriate proceedings before the said Court or any other Court permissible under the law of the said country.
Consequently the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. For want of jurisdiction.