Foreign Judgment Conclusiveness Under CPC Section 13

The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, specifically Section 13, deals with the conclusiveness of foreign judgments. A foreign judgment is generally considered final and conclusive between the parties involved regarding matters that were directly decided ('adjudicated upon') in that judgment. This principle promotes finality in litigation and respects judgments from courts of other countries.

Exceptions to Conclusiveness of Foreign Judgments

However, Section 13 of the CPC outlines several specific situations where a foreign judgment, despite being issued by a competent court, will not be considered conclusive. These exceptions ensure that foreign judgments are only respected if they meet certain standards of fairness and legitimacy. The exceptions are:

• Where the court which pronounced the judgment lacked competent jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter.
• Where the judgment was not given on the merits of the case.
• Where the judgment was given in proceedings that were opposed to natural justice.
• Where the judgment was obtained by fraud.
• Where the judgment sustains a claim founded on a breach of Indian law.
• Where the proceedings were in breach of any law in force in India.

Analysis of the Specific Exception

The question asks in which case a foreign judgment is not conclusive. Based on Section 13 of the CPC, 1908, a key exception is when the judgment "has not been given on the merits of the case".

Let's break down why this is the correct exception and why others might be less fitting:

• Not given on the merits: This means the court did not decide the case based on the substantive issues, evidence, and arguments presented. For example, a judgment entered automatically because one party failed to appear (a default judgment) or a dismissal based purely on a technicality without considering the substance of the claim might not be considered "on the merits". Such judgments lack the finality associated with a decision based on the actual dispute.
• Against customs of the parties: While a judgment violating fundamental public policy or natural justice principles might be challenged, simply being "against customs" isn't a direct statutory ground for non-conclusiveness under Section 13 unless those customs relate to core principles like jurisdiction or natural justice.
• Given on the merits: This option describes the general rule for conclusiveness, not an exception. If a judgment *is* given on the merits, it *is* generally conclusive.
• Not given on the issues of law: While judgments should ideally address relevant legal issues, the primary criterion in Section 13(d) is whether the judgment was rendered "on the merits". A judgment can be on the merits even if it involves complex legal points or if a specific legal issue isn't fully explored, as long as the substance of the dispute was adjudicated. The core issue is the lack of adjudication on the substance, not necessarily the handling of legal points.

Therefore, the most direct and accurate answer, as listed in Section 13 of the CPC, 1908, for a foreign judgment not being conclusive is when it has not been given on the merits of the case.