The matter is coming up for admission.

2. This Court ordered notice on 8-9-2008.

3. Sri B. Nalin Kumar entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.

4. Sri N. Harinatha Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner filed application No. 1041 of 2008 praying for 191 permission to file better affidavit and the said application was ordered by this Court by order dated 1-12-2008.

5. Sri B. Nalin Kumar filed a counter affidavit in detail on behalf of the respondents and rejoinder also had been filed.

6. Sri N. Harinatha Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the letter of request made by the foreign court and the contents thereof and would maintain that in the light of Order 26, Rules 19, 22 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience, there is no necessity of putting the opposite parties on notice. The learned counsel would maintain that in fact certain O.Ps. had been allowed by this Court even without notice to the other side, since the same may not be necessary, but, however, in the present case this Court had chosen to issue notice to the opposite parties and even if the affidavit filed in support of the O.P., the stand taken in the counter affidavit and also the rejoinder to be carefully examined, though specifically the name of witness had not been specified the purpose specified in the letter of request is the documents specified thereunder to be produced by the concerned company - Anu's Laboratories Limited. The learned counsel while further elaborating his submissions had taken this Court through the contents of the letter of request and also the relevant provisions of the Code already specified above. The counsel also would maintain that Section 51 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 also throws some light on this aspect.

While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel also would maintain that these provisions Order 26, Rules 19, 22 read with Rule 17 of the Code to be read along with Section 78 of the Code, if the scheme of the Code is to be carefully examined, the evidence would include both oral and documentary evidence in the light of letter of request made by the foreign court, in may have to be taken that the competent person concerned with the company, the corporate entity, to be examined for the limited purpose of production of the documents and nothing beyond thereto and hence to read the letter of request in a different fashion would be in violation of the very object of these provisions. The counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court through the relevant provisions of the convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on Articles 3 and 12 of the said convention and ultimately would conclude that in the peculiar facts and circumstances instead of giving a technical and strict interpretation to the language of Order 26, Rule 19 of the Code as contended by the other side, the object of issuance of letter of request may have to be taken into consideration in its true spirit and appropriate directions to be issued in this regard. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on certain decisions.

7. Per contra, Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned' counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Code and also further had drawn attention of this Court to Sections 75 and 94 of the Code. The learned Counsel would further maintain that this may not fall under the incidental proceedings and in the light of the specific language employed in Order 26, Rule 19 of the Code broader interpretation cannot be given especially when the name of the witness had not been specified by the foreign court. When a specific provision is available in the Code, the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code also cannot be invoked and in the light of the same, the letter of request made by the