A adjudicating court and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. If the proceedings be in accordance with the practice of the [oreign court but that practice is not in accordance with natural justice, this • court will not allow it to be concluded by them. In other words, the courts are vigilant to see that the defendant had not been deprived of an opportunity to present his side of the case(1 ). The wholesome maxim audi alteram partem is deemed to be universal, not merely of B • domestic application, and therefore, the only question is, whether the minors had an opportunity of contesting the proceeding in the English court. If notices of the proceedings were served on their natural guardians, but they did not appear on behalf of the minors although they put in appearance in the proceedings in their personal capacity, what could the foreign court do except to appoint a court guardian for the minors? Under Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the natural c guardian is unwilling to act as guardian for a minor in a suit, the court can appoint an officer of the court to be such guardian. In effect, when the. natural guardians were given notice of the proceedings on hohalf of the minors, an opportunity was given to the minors through those guardians to contest the proceedings. All that is required by rules of natural justice is that minor should be given an opportunity to contest through their natural guardians. Even if there was any D breach of the rule of procedure prevailing in the forum where the proceedings were conducted, that would not be material, as what we have to see is whether the proceedings have been conducted in substantial compliance with the prevailing notion of fairplay. And, when the natural guardians evinced their intention not to contest the proceedings by not putting any appearance on behalf of the minors, we think the requirement of natural justice was satisfied when the court appointed E an officer of the court to be guardian ad /item of the minors in the proceedings. Connsel for the respondents raised a new point not taken either before the trial court or High Court and that is that as the minors did not submit to the jurisdiction of the English Court, that court had no jurisdiction so far as they were concerned and the declaration in ex. 56 F order would not operate as res judicata as respects them. Now, it is a well established proposition in private international Jaw that unless a foreign court has jurisdiction in the international sense, a judgment delivered by that court would not be recognized or enforceable in India. The guardians of the minors did not enter appearance on behalf of the minors and so it cannot be said that the G minors through the guardians submitted to the jurisdiction of the En~lish Court. The practice illustrated by Order 11 of the English R.S.C., under which the courts of a country assume jurisdiction over absentees, raises the question whether a foreign judgment given in these circumstances will be recognized e\sewere. The authorities, so far as they go, are against re<:ognition. The question arose in Buchanan v. Rucker(') where it was disclosed that by the law of Tobago, service of process H (1) see Cheshire's Private International Law, 8th Ed. p, 656. (2) (1808) 9 East 192.
