' ATIR MAHMOOD, J. --- Through this appeal; the appellant has assailed the vires of order dated 04.02.2015 whereby application under Section 47, CPC filed by the respondents was accepted and execution petition filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/Executing Court, Chakwal.
2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the appellant filed a recovery suit against the respondents in the Federal Court of Sharjah, UAE with the assertions that the respondents were employed in the appellant company as Sales Manager and Accountant where they allegedly committed embezzlement. Respondent No, 1 was proceeded against ex parte whereas respondent No, 2 contested the suit but after decree of the suit fled away to Pakistan. The suit was ultimately decreed against the respondents by Federal Court of Sharjah, UAE vide judgment dated 26.09.2013 with total amount of AED 14,33,297/- in addition to legal interest of 9% as from the claim date upto payment in full. Since the respondents were permanently residing in Pakistan, the executing Court at UAE vide order dated 23.03.2014 allowed the appellant to follow up the execution of judgment against the respondents outside the state and also issued a certificate in this regard on 27.03.2014.
3. The appellant filed execution petition under Section 44-A, CPC which was entrusted to Additional District Judge, Chakwal. The respondents appeared before the Court and filed petition under Section 47, CPC raising objection that the execution petition was not maintainable as the UAE was not a reciprocating state. Learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal after hearing both sides accepted the said application and dismissed the execution petition vide order dated 04.02.2015 which has been assailed in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Federal Court of Sharjah is a Court of appeal as it hears the appeals against decisions of local Courts, therefore, it being a Court of appeal is a superior Court; that since the Federal Court of Sharjah is a superior court, its decree is executable in Pakistan in light of notification No, SRO 208(1)/2007, dated 06.03.2007 read with Section 44-A of the CPC, therefore, this appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the objection petition of the respondents be dismissed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this appeal mainly on the ground that the Federal Court of Sharjah has passed the judgment as a Court of first instance, therefore, neither it can be considered as a Court of appeal nor the superior Court nor the decree can be executed in Pakistan. He accordingly prays for dismissal of this appeal.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The controversy between the parties is as to whether the decree in question passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah, UAE as a Court of First Instance is executable or not in Pakistan.
8. The execution petition was filed by the appellant under Section 44-A of the CPC which provides that:--- "44-A. Execution of decrees passed by Courts in the United Kingdom and other reciprocating territory. ---(1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of the United Kingdom or any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in Pakistan 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 purpose 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."
(Emphasis provided)
' Bare perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 44-A of CPC reveals that the decrees passed by the Courts in the United Kingdom and other reciprocating territories can be executed in Pakistan in the same way as such decrees were passed by the Courts in Pakistan. Such execution petition will be filed in the District Court concerned and all the provisions pertaining to execution contained in the Civil Procedure Code will be applicable thereto. Initially, the name of United Arab Emirates was not included in the list of reciprocating territories, however, Government of Pakistan, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division vide its Notification No, S.R.O. 208(1)/2007, dated 06.03.2007 included the UAE in the list of reciprocating territory and the Courts of Appeal of the UAE as Superior Courts for the purposes of Section 44-A of the CPC. Relevant portion from the said notification is reproduced below:--- ' Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), the Federal Government is pleased to declare the United Arab Emirates to be a reciprocating territory and the Court of Appeal of the United Arab Emirates to be Superior Courts for the purposes of the said Section. "
(Underline is mine)
' Reading of above makes it unambiguously clear that the UAE is a reciprocating territory of Pakistan which fact even could not be denied by the respondent side. However, the respondent side has taken plea that since the decree was passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah, UAE as a Court of First Instance and not as a Court of Appeal, the decree could not be considered to have been passed by a superior court, as such, it is in executable. In this regard, Explanation 3 given under Section 44A of the CPC is pertinent which is reproduced hereunder:--- "Explanation 3.---" 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, and
(a) ..
(b) ..."
(Emphasis provided)
' The decree in question is undisputedly a money decree which has been passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah, UAE as a Court of First Instance.
9. According to Constitution of UAE, there is a three tier system of justice in UAE which includes the Supreme Court, Federal First Instance Court and Local Courts. Sub-Article (3) of Article 102 of the Constitution of UAE (hereinafter called "the Constitution") provides that the Federal Court of First Instance will hear the cases including personal status cases, civil and commercial cases and other cases between the individuals, which arise in the permanent capital city of the UAE. The judgments of Federal Court of First Instance will be heard by the Federal Supreme Court as per Article 103 of the Constitution of the UAE. Article 105 of the Constitution of UAE reads that:- "A federal law specifies the cases where a judgment by a local judicial authority in a criminal, civil, commercial or any other lawsuit may be appealed before a Federal Court. "
' This provision is very much relevant to the issue in hand as to whether the Federal Court is a Court of appeal or not. There are certain matters which are raised initially before the local courts and then the judgments of local Courts are challenged before the courts of appeal which duly hear such appeals and render decisions thereupon. But there are certain matters which do not come within the jurisdiction of the local courts and are placed by the superior courts such as High Courts and Supreme Court in Pakistan. The High Courts and Supreme Court in Pakistan are always considered and admitted as superior courts either they decide the cases in the appellate jurisdiction or in the original jurisdiction, i.e, as a Court of first instance. Keeping this principle in view, the Federal Court of First Instance of Sharjah is a Court of appeal as it hears appeals arising out of judgments of the local courts and since this is a Court of appeal, it is, in my considered view, is a superior Court and its decree is executable in Pakistan under Section 44A of the CPC although I am conscious of the fact that the decree in question was not passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah in appeal but in its original jurisdiction, i.e, as a Court of first instance. A Federal Court of Sharjah being a Court of appeal is a superior Court for the purposes of Section 44-A of the CPC and any decree passed by the said Court whether in its original jurisdiction or in its appellate jurisdiction can be executed in Pakistan.
10, Here arises a question that if a decree is passed against someone who does not challenge it in appeal as to whether such decree would become redundant as having been passed by a Court of first instance and not by a Court of appeal. The answer will definitely be "no". In my opinion, none can be deprived of fruits of a decree passed in his favour, particularly in the circumstances of the present to which the respondents-judgment-debtors were employed in the appellant company working in the UAE where from they allegedly fled away to avoid consequences of the legal proceedings initiated against them thereat. In the circumstances, the decree in question can be executed in Pakistan to offer fruit of the decree to the appellant passed in its favour by Federal Court of Sharjah being superior Court of UAE as provided under Notification. No, S.R.O.208(1)/2007, dated 06.03.2007. The order impugned is accordingly not sustainable in the eye of law.
11. For what has been discussed above, this FAO is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the objection petition filed by the respondents under Section 47, CPC is dismissed.