' This regular first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge-VI, Swabi, whereby suit of the respondent-plaintiff, namely, Ali Muhammad, for recovery of 101250/- UAE dirham alongwith 6 % mark up was decreed against the appellant- defendant.
2. Facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff, Ali Muhammad, filed a suit for recovery of 101250/- UAE Dirham or equivalent Pakistani currency along with 15 % mark up against Wali Khan, the appellant-defendant. It was averred in the plaint that earlier he had filed a Suit No, 72 in the year, 2008, for recovery of the same amount of UAE Dirham against the appellant in Dubai Court, which was decreed on 19.10.2008 but the defendant-appellant after the decree decamped from Dubai and the rectal amount is still outstanding against him and, as such, prayed for the recovery of said amount.
3. The suit of the respondent-plaintiff was contested by the appellant-defendant by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing of issues, recording pro and contra evidence and hearing the parties, decreed the suit along with 6 % interest, vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2015, hence, the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the decree was passed in Dubai Court in his absence, therefore, the same has no legal sanctity. He argued that Issues No, 5, 6 and 7 have not been decided in accordance with the available evidence on record as the appellant has made payment to the respondent more than that of the decretal amount and in this respect he also produced receipts duly exhibited but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial Court. He further argued that the decree in question is also not admissible under Article 89 (5) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as the same has neither been certified by the Pakistani Councilor or diplomatic agent, therefore, the same has no providential value.
5. As against that, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of trial Court and argued that the respondent has filed the present suit on the basis of decree passed by the Foreign Court with further submission that nothing has been paid to him after passing of the decree by the Dubai Court and the receipts so produced by the appellant are regarding payment of amount with respect to the income of the partnership.
6. Arguments of learned counsel for parties were heard and record of the case was perused.
7. The perusal of record reveals that both the parties belong to District Mardan and had gone to Dubai in connection with earning their livelihood where money dispute arose in between them and in this respect the respondent filed a suit which was decreed on 19.10.2008 against the appellant by a competent Court at Dubai. The respondent alleged that as the appellant decamped from Dubai after grant of the decree in his favor, therefore, the decree was not satisfied and, as such, he approached Civil Judge,Swabi, by filing the present suit. Legally speaking, after obtaining a foreign judgment by the plaintiff, he can either file an application to the District Court directly for execution of the decree under Section 44-A, C.P.C., if the country from which the decree has been passed is United Kingdom or any reciprocating territory or he can file a suit under Section 13, C.P.C. In Pakistan on the basis of foreign judgment treating it as cause of action and in the case in hand the plaintiff- respondent has opted the latter course.
' Under Section 13, C.P.C. a foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any mator 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 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. The perusal of Section 13 of the Code would reveal that a *reign judgment is conclusive in Pakistan provided it fulfills the conditions enumerated therein. Section 13 enacts the rule of substantive law and not merely a rule of procedure. The Pakistani Court cannot question the correctness of the same subject to the exceptions as enumerated in (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the Code and if the exceptions, referred to above, are fulfilled the judgment is conclusive between the parties. Reliance is placed on the case titled "Habib Bank Limited vs. Bahjani Scrap Trading Company LLC and 2 others" (PLD 2011 Karachi 257), wherein it has been held that:-- "Upon obtaining foreign judgment by plaintiff, three courses are open to such plaintiff, firstly he can obtain execution of foreign judgment by proceedings under S. 44-A, C.P.C., if the country from which decree has been obtained is United Kingdom or any reciprocating territory and in that case, plaintiff can out rightly obtain execution of the decree from District Court of concerned District of Pakistan and plaintiff need not file suit even and need not go through procedure prescribed for trial of suit. Secondly, plaintiff can file suit in Pakistan on the basis of foreign judgment treating it as cause of action. In adopting second course, if conditions prescribed in S. 13, C.P.C. Are fulfilled, the judgment is conclusive between parties and otherwise it is res judicature between them and such Courts in Pakistan are bound by its findings".
' In the case in hand, the matter has already been decided by the foreign Court at Dubai and the same has also been admitted by the appellant in his written statement as well as in his statement recorded as DW-1. He further admitted in his cross-examination that no appeal has been filed by him against the said decree and as such, got finality. The perusal of certified copies of the judgment along with translation would reveal that there was partnership agreement between the parties with regard to Tractor and Trailer and the appellant allegedly sold the Trailer to a third party without consent of the respondent and this became the cause of dispute as a result of which the respondent approached the Court at Dubai for the redress of his grievances and the Court after referring the matter for investigation and on the basis of Auditor Firm report, passed the decree on 19.10.2008. Admittedly, neither the appellant has filed an appeal against the said decree nor filed any objection under any of the exceptions provided under Section V 13 of the, C.P.C., therefore, the judgment is conclusive and irrefutable.
8. As far as argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has made payment more than that of decretal amount is concerned, the perusal of record would reveal that the decree was passed on 19.10.2008 while the receipts are of the year, 2007. Though, one of the receipts amounting to 40,000/- Dirham, Ex DW 1/1, is of the year, 2009, but the same does not bear the seal of the concerned Court, therefore, the findings of learned trial Court is well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of law and evidence available on record.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.