 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN. 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM. 
  
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1793 OF 2016 AND C. M. APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2016. 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 31.5.2016 of the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench passed in FAO No. 49 of 2015).  
 
Nadeem Farooq and others. 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Newze Land Electronic Trading Co. Lee Sharja.   
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s):  
Sh. Zamir Hussain, ASC. 
 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Ch., AOR. (Absent) 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Mr. Shaukat Rauf Siddique, ASC. 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sh., AOR. (Absent).   
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
30.11.2016. 
 
O R D E R   
 
 
 
 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- This appeal as of right has arisen out of 
the judgment dated 31.05.2016 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi 
Bench whereby the learned Judge in its chambers allowed the revision 
petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order of the Executing 
Court accepting objection of the appellant.  
2. 
 
This case was argued at length on many dates. The main 
contention of the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the appellants was 
that since the decree sought to be executed has been passed by the 
Federal Court of first instance which cannot be treated as a decree of 
superior Court in terms of Section 44-A CPC, it cannot be executed.  
3. 
 
Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the respondent 
contended that since the Federal Court of first instance also hears appeals 
in the matters against judgments of local Courts, it could also be treated as 
Federal Court of appeal and as such a superior Court for all legal and 
practical purposes.  
4. 
 
We also involved the learned DAG in the matter but the 
assistance he provided is summed up as under :-  
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1793 OF 2016 AND C. M. APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2016 
 
2 
“Learned Deputy Attorney General assisted the Court. Apparently 
he appears to have agreed with the proposition that the court of 
appeal does not mean the court of appeal exercising appellate 
jurisdiction in the matters other than those decreed by such court. 
It, according to him, includes the court confirming, reversing or 
modifying the decree of the court of first instance. Learned ASC 
for the respondent insisted that the court of appeal does not 
necessarily mean the court of appeal exercising appellate 
jurisdiction against the decree passed by the court of first instance 
but since nothing incisive, aboveboard and unambiguous has 
been cited as could justify a departure from the ordinary meaning 
of the word “superior” used in Section 44-A CPC, the learned 
Deputy Attorney General wants a week’s more time to provide the 
assistance of that nature. Re-list on 07.11.2016.” 
 
5. 
 
We have gone through the record carefully and considered 
the submissions of the learned ASCs for the parties.  
6. 
 
The question emerging for the consideration of this Court is 
what is the nature of the decree, what is the status of the Court passing it 
and whether such decree could be executed in a Court in Pakistan. The 
main provision of CPC dealing with the nature of the decree, status of the 
Court passing it and its executability is Section 44-A which reads as under :-  
“44-A. Execution of decree 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 purposes 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 expectations specified in 
clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13. 
 
 
Explanation 1. “Superior Courts”. With reference to 
the United Kingdom, means the High Court in England, the 
Court of Session in Scotland, the High Court in Northern 
Ireland, the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of 
Lancaster and the Court of Chancery of the County 
Palatine of Durham. 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1793 OF 2016 AND C. M. APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2016 
 
3 
 
Explanation 2.  “Reciprocating territory” means [the 
United Kingdom and such other country or territory as] the 
[Federal Government] may, from time to time, by 
notification in the [official Gazette], declare to be 
reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and 
“superior Courts”, with reference to any such territory, 
means such Courts as may be specified in the said 
notification.  
 
 
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)   with reference to superior Courts in the United 
Kingdom, includes judgments, given and decree made in 
any Court in appeals against such decrees or judgments, 
but  
 
b)   in no case includes an arbitration award, even 
if such award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.]” 
  
 
7. 
 
What is the status of United Arab Emirates and what is the 
superior Court in its hierarchy for the purposes of Section 44-A CPC have 
been fully illustrated in the notification SRO No. 208(I)2007 which reads as 
under:-  
 
“SRO. 208(I)/2007.--- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 
44A of the Code of Civil 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.  
 
WHEREAS under section 44A of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), the Federal Government is 
empowered to declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, any 
country to be reciprocating territory for the purposes of said 
section and also to declare Superior Courts with reference to any 
such territory.”  
 
It is thus clear that United Arab Emirates has been declared as a 
reciprocating State and that the Court of Appeal in the United Arab 
Emirates is a superior Court for the purposes of Section 44-A CPC. What is 
the hierarchy and ranking of the Courts established in United Arab Emirates 
has been listed in Article 9 of the Federal Law No. 03 issued on 26.05.1983 
(Concerning The Federal Judicial Corps) which reads as under:-      
“Article 9.  As Amended by Article 1 of the Federal Law No. 2 
dated 24/3/1991: 
 
 The federal courts in the United Arab Emirates State shall consist 
of: 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1793 OF 2016 AND C. M. APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2016 
 
4 
1.   The Federal Supreme Court. 
2.   The Federal Courts of Appeal. 
3.   The Federal Courts of First Instance. 
Their ranking among themselves shall be in the order in which they 
are listed hereinabove.” 
 
8. 
 
A combined reading of Section 44-A CPC, SRO notification 
No. 208(I)/2007 and Article 9 of the Federal Law No. 03 issued on 26.05.1983 
(Concerning The Federal Judicial Corps) would reveal that United Arab 
Emirates is a reciprocating State and that the Federal Court of Appeal 
established in the hierarchy is a superior Court for the purposes of Section 
44-A CPC. Now what is left to be determined by this Court is as to what is 
the status of the Court passing the decree sought to be executed? A look 
at the decree would reveal that it has been passed by the Court of first 
instance which can neither be construed as Court of Appeal nor a superior 
Court in terms of Section 44-A CPC and the notification issued thereunder. 
When so it cannot executed without having recourse to the process of 
Section 13 of the CPC. The view taken by the High Court thus does not 
appear to be correct.  
9. 
 
For the reasons discussed above, we allow this appeal, set 
aside the impugned judgment and restore that of the Executing Court. The 
respondent, however, would be at liberty to institute a suit in terms of 
Section 13 CPC which shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible but 
not later than six months. The C. M. Appeal also stands disposed of.    
   
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
ISLAMABAD. 
30.11.2016. 
M. Azhar Malik 
