2009 (7) TMI 1349 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Application to summon Counsel as a witness without consent, interpretation of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Summary:
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance against the revision petitioners based on a sale agreement. During the proceedings, the respondent sought permission to summon a Counsel as a witness to support his claim that the petitioners consulted the Counsel for legal advice regarding their status as legal heirs. The revision petitioners opposed this, arguing that the Counsel cannot be called as a witness without their consent. The trial Judge allowed the application, prompting the revision petitioners to file a civil revision petition challenging this decision.

The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits disclosure of professional communications by a Counsel without the client's express consent, except in cases involving illegal purposes, crimes, or fraud. The respondent contended that the Counsel was bound to give evidence regarding the communication made for filing the civil suit, falling under the purview of Section 126. However, the revision petitioners argued that the Counsel should not be permitted to testify without their consent.

The Judge highlighted the dual purpose of Section 126, emphasizing the protection it offers to both parties and Counsel. The Judge noted that compelling a Counsel to disclose confidential communications could lead to complications for both the Counsel and the client, as the Counsel's role is to represent the client's interests without personal involvement. The Judge also referenced a Kerala High Court judgment to distinguish situations where a Counsel's testimony may or may not be admissible under Section 126.

Ultimately, the Judge found that the trial Judge erred in allowing the Counsel to be summoned as a witness without the revision petitioners' consent. The impugned order was set aside, and the civil revision petition was allowed, with no costs awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the importance of client confidentiality in legal proceedings and upheld the principle that a Counsel should not be compelled to disclose professional communications without the client's consent, as mandated by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.