THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO O.S.A.No.24 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) This appeal being filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant against whom the orders were passed in allowing the petition filed by the respondent as per orders in O.P.No.1 of 2008, dated 8-12-2008. Heard both sides. These proceedings are quite an apt description to the normal proceedings which under go the process of enquiry and the viscosities therein. Briefly, though without going into much in detail the appellant is laid with an action in a foreign Court for violation of trade mark by the respondent, and in those proceedings letter of request was addressed by foreign court for the purpose of taking evidence. In pursuance of the said letter of request made from the Court at Newjersey, the respondent had filed O.P.1 of 2008 before the learned Single Judge purportedly under Order 26 Rule 20 (a) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint Dr.S.V.Eswaran or any other competent person as a Commissioner for recording the evidence of a technically qualified representative of Anu’s Laboratories Limited and to peruse and obtain photocopies of certain documents as mentioned therein. These proceedings after issuance of notice to the appellant was contested by raising several questions as to the manner in which it has to be taken or not taken, and further there being no proper direction issued and thus it has become impracticable to implement. That apart, the objections include as to the interpretation of the Rule under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure vis-à-vis with all the other provisions of law. An attempt on behalf of the respondent itself is that the nature of proceedings as initiated are only formal and in fact there were no notices required to be given to the respondents as being practiced earlier. In support reliance was sought to be placed on the orders passed by this Court in a similar circumstances. Be that as it may, since notice was already given to the appellant-respondent, who appeared and contested and hence this point has become odious. Of the objections raised, the learned Single Judge has given a due consideration to various aspects by referring to the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure and also the convention and noted ultimately that the said letter has to be given effect to. The question whether it would include, both oral and documentary evidence or only one type is also clarified. No doubt the letter of request does not specify the name of witness or witnesses to be examined, but however, the learned Single Judge found that since the Company as a corporate personality has been specified it suffices, and thus, ultimately rejected all the objections raised on behalf of the appellant directing Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to proceed with the process of taking evidence either by itself or by appointing a Commissioner. We have considered in detail all the objections raised on behalf of the appellant herein and also perused the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, which are nothing but the self same repetition of the objections raised before the learned Single Judge which have already found not favourable with the appellant and rejected by proper reasons, with which we do not find any reason to distinguish or come to any different conclusion. The nice submissions sought to be made in interpreting Rule 19 of Order 26 and Sections 75 and 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant in a restricted way may not find place in the know of the things ultimately irrespective of the fact whether one would include the other or not. The provisions with which we are now concerned are only procedural ones. Therefore, it has to be taken into account the well established principles to the effect that the procedural laws should be interpreted liberally so as to have each side full opportunity of participation and proceed with the case including taking of the evidence oral and documentary. No question of any restriction can be imported nor can any party be denied of any such assistance in this regard. Any narrow approach or interpretation of the provisions or denial of opportunity to any of the parties would seriously prejudice the substantive and vested rights of the parties for substantiating their own case in the manner they feel they are entitled to though subject to the proof of relevancy. After referring to all the contentions at length, the learned Single Judge has held that making any inroads into the request would only defeat the object of issuance of such letter. Therefore, without putting any restrictions as such we are in entire agreement with the learned Single Judge. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the above appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B PRAKASH RAO,J) _______________ (R.KANTHA RAO,J) DATE: -03-2011 GRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO (Judgment of the Bench Pronounced by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) O.S.A.No.24 of 2008 Dated: -03-2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO (P.D.Judgment prepared by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) O.S.A.No.24 of 2008 Cirlculated to His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao for perusal.