The court has the power to issue a letter of request to a foreign court for the examination of witnesses residing outside India, and this power is not subject to any reciprocal agreement between the governments.

( 1 ) BY this interlocutory application the plaintiff seeks certain directions further to this court s order dated 31st January, 1989 by which a letter of request was directed to be sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, for the examination of certain witnesses in the above suit pending in this court.

( 2 ) ON notice being issued, the defendant has filed its reply to the application seeking certain other directions and not in fact opposing the application of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has desired that an order be made authorising the plaintiff s solicitors, namely, Quinlan, Miller and Treston, 16th Level. Westpac Building, 260 Queen Street Brisbane-4000, to make an application on her behalf to the Hon ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, for giving effect to the letter of request sent by order dated 31st January, 1989, afore-mentioned.

( 3 ) TO understand the rival contentions of the parties, it will be necessary to set out the brief background of the case.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit as an indigent person for recovery of Rs. 2 crores (Rs. 20 millions) as damages for injuries sustained by her in the swimming pool of the defendant s hotel known as Akbar Hotel in New Delhi. She sustained injuries in May, 1978, which it appears, permanently iacapacitandted her. On pleas, of the parties. this. court framed the following issues;

(1) Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorised person ? (2) Whether New Delhi Municipal Committee was owner of the building of Akbar Hotel and was a necessary party ? (3) Whether the tiles covering the floor of the swimming pool were slippery ? (4) Whether the floor of the swimming pool was not clean and had not been properly maintained, resulting in the growth and accumulation of slime on tiles ? (5) Whether the plaintiff suffered injuries on the account of the nature and condition of the bottom of the pool and due to negligence of the hotel ? If so what injuries were sufferred by her? (6) Whether the plaintiff was required to observe any rules in the use of swimming pool and she did not sobserve the said rules and was herself negligent for the injuries suffered if , any ? (7) Whether the swimming in the pool was at the risk and responsibility of the plaintiff (the guest) and there was no obligation on the hotel in this behalf ? (8) Whether the defendant was in legal duty to keep the swimming pool safe for swimming of guests and the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the maxim res ipsa loquitur ? (9) To what amount, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ? To prove her case the plaintiff has necessarily to examine certain witnesses who are in Australia. Accordingly, her application for examination of these witnesses on commission was allowed Mr. Madan Bhatia, Barrister at Law, learned counsel for the plaintiff brought on record Rules 43 and 48 of Order 40 of the Rules and Procedure of the Supreme Court of Queensland and Section 12 of Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1956 (of Australia ). Under these rules this court has to authorise a person to make an application on behalf of this court to the Supreme Court of Queensland for giving effect to the letter of request issued by this court. The Supreme Court of Queensland is to give all such necessary directions for the exmaination of the witnesses and under Rule 48 it could direct, if it thinks fit, examination of the witnesses to be taken in such manner as may be requested by the letter of request from this court.

( 5 ) THE procedure appears to be simple enough and I would send a request to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Queensland, to have the witnesses examined on oath or on solemn affirmation and then refer to Rule 16-A of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to this court and which is as under :

"16-A. Questions objected to before the Commissioner (l) Where any question put to a witness is objected to by a party or his pleader in pro