Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. On the facts mentioned above, Courts Trotter, C.J., gave his opinion as follows:

It was urged - and very likely correctly urged - that the English Law was different. The answer to that is, we are bound by the statute on which the decision in Keymer's case was based. That statutory provision is Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure under which an exception to the conclusiveness of a foreign judgment in a Britjsh Indian Court is where it has not been given on the merits of the case. As I understand Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar's argument, he says that it is not like the case of the defendant's defence being struck out for not answering interrogatories or being out of time or anything of the kind; for that may be held not to be a defence on the merits because ex hypothesi the position is the defendant was precluded from going into the alleged merits which he had set up and he says it is quite different where the defendant does not appear at all because that is a clear intimation by him that he admits the validity of the plaintiff's claim and that it is just as good as if the plaintiff has actually proved it by evidence. I think the decision of their Lordships of the Frivy Council impliedly excludes any such distinction and I regret to say that I cannot agree with the attempt made by two learned Judges of this Court to draw this distinction in Janoo Hassan v. Mahomed Ohuthu (1954) I.L.R. 47 Mad. 877 : 47 M.L.J. 356, and I think that the case must be regarded as no longer law.