ORDER :

Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.

1. Petitioner happens to be a plaintiff along with the Federal Provinces in Case 1:20-cv-00706-DLC wherein VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS and two others are the defendants; the said case is pending consideration on the file of the Hon'ble District Court for the Southern District of New York, USA; the case involves an allegation that by employing an unlawful anti-competitive scheme, the defendants have blocked lower-cost generic competition to Daraprim, an essential drug used for treating the potentially fatal parasitic infection namely, Toxoplasmosis.

2. Petitioner's application for securing the oral and documentary evidence in terms of The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters of March 18, 1970 having been favoured, the said Court has approved the Letter of Request for the collection and recording of evidence, and pursuance thereof the petition at hands, has arisen.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayers made merit grant because:

(A) The basic law relating to accomplishment of "commissions issued by the Foreign Courts" is found in the provisions of Section 78 read with Rules 19 to 22 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 78 reads as under:

"78. Commissions issued by foreign Courts.-Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the provisions as to the execution and return of commissions for the examination of witnesses shall apply to commissions issued by or at the instance of.-

(a) Courts situate in any part of India to which the provisions of this Code do not extend; or

(b) Courts established or continued by authority of the Central Government outside India; or

(c) Courts of any State or country outside India."

(B) The provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 19 of the Code being complementary to Section 78 lay down a 'detailed procedure, with the following text:

"19. Cases in which High Court may issue commission to examine witness.-(1) If a High Court is satisfied.-

(a) that a foreign Court situated in a foreign country wishes to obtain the evidence of a witness in any proceeding before it;

(b) that the proceeding is of a civil nature; and

(c) that the witness is residing within the limits of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction,

it may, subject to the provisions of Rule 20, issue a commission for the examination of such witness.

(2) Evidence may be given of the matters specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1).-

(a) by a certificate signed by the consular officer of the foreign country of the highest rank in India and transmitted to the High Court through the Central Government; or

(b) by a letter of request issued by the foreign Court and transmitted to the High Court through the Central Government; or

(c) by a letter of request issued by the foreign Court and produced before the High Court by a party to the proceeding."

There is no need for any interpretation of these provisions which are as clear as Gangetic waters.

(C) The aforementioned provisions of the Code which were originally enacted by Act 10 of 1932 have been re-framed in the 1976 amendment, for giving effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Article 51 of the Constitution of India; the said Article is phrased as under:

"Article 51. The State shall endeavour to.-

(a) promote international peace and security;

(b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations;

(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and

(d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration."

The text of the aforesaid provisions of the Code are presumably enacted for giving effect inter alia to the intent of The Hague Convention to which both India and United States of America are parties; the Apex Court in Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India III(2014) SLT 695 : 2014(4) S