As per case facts, Petitioners, who are foreign Decree Holders, filed an execution application in India for a decree passed by a foreign Civil Court in UAE. After UAE was ... notified as a reciprocating territory, the Respondent, the judgment-debtor, filed applications for dismissal and for framing issues and leading evidence, arguing that the decree was not on merits, violated natural justice, and was obtained by fraud, and that the execution was time-barred. The District Judge allowed the application for framing issues and leading evidence, prompting the Petitioners to appeal, contending that such a full-fledged trial is unnecessary for decrees from reciprocating territories. The question arose whether the Executing Court, while executing a decree passed by a foreign court in a reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code, can frame issues and direct parties to lead evidence during its inquiry into the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the Code. Finally, the Court, acknowledging the judgment-debtor's doubts regarding the decree's merits, natural justice violations, and alleged fraud, identified these as exceptional circumstances. It was held that framing issues and allowing evidence is a matter of prudence and justifiable in such rare and exceptional cases. The decision to permit evidence was deemed prudent, and the Executing Court was requested to complete its findings expeditiously, ideally within three months. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed.