( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 5 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ongole. It was filed for specific performance of an oral agreement. He filed this revision petition aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court in I. A. No. 105 of 2000 wherein the Court below refused to summon one Y. V. Seshaiah a practising Advocate as Court witness.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel of both the sides. From the factual background of the case, it revealed that the petitioner herein, i. e. the plaintiff in the suit was orally inducted into the suit schedule premises some time in the year 1993. The respondents initiated proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit premises and ultimately succeeded and taken the possession of the property. Pending eviction proceedings the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of the oral agreement of sale entered into by the parties in July 1993. In the pleadings, the petitioner categorically stated that he met one Y. V. Seshaiah counsel for the respondent during the pendency of the eviction proceedings to settle the matter amicably and help him to purchase the suit schedule premises. On that, himself and Mr. Y. V. Seshaiah had been to Hyderabad where the first respondent is residing and Mr. Y. V. Seshaiah negotiated the transaction with the first respondent and as per the version of the petitioner, the first respondent agreed to sell the property in question for Rs. 6,50,000. 00. It is his further case that he paid Rs. 1,000. 00 as an advance in the presence of other witnesses to the first respondent. The petitioner perhaps having come to know that the first respondent is trying to enter into agreement of sale for the same property with the second respondent, he got issued legal notice calling upon the first respondent to implement the oral agreement entered into and when the first respondent gave reply denying the oral sale through Sri Y. V. Seshaiah he filed the suit for specific performance of the oral agreement of sale.

( 3 ) IN the written statement, except denying the oral agreement pleaded by the petitioner, he did not take any stand with regard to the meeting of the petitioner in the presence of Y. V. Seshaiah. But in the witness box he categorically admitted that the petitioner along with Y. V. Seshaiah approached him and requested him to sell the building. But his case is as he has entered into agreement of sale with the second respondent already the question of selling the house again to the petitioner does not arise. The first respondent for the reasons best known to him changed Y. V. Seshaiah as his counsel who was representing throughout the eviction proceedings and also for giving reply, engaged some other counsel.

( 4 ) AFTER evidence of the parties is over the petitioner filed this impugned application to summon Y. V. Seshaiah as a Court witness under Order 16, Rule 14, CPC. The trial Court dismissed the said application by taking the view that under Section 126 of the Evidence Act no advocate can be called as witness without permission of his client and also on the ground that though the petitioner has knowledge from the beginning about the factum of negotiation by Y. V. Seshaiah, he did not choose to examine him earlier and he filed the petition at the stage of arguments seeking examination of Sri Y. V. Seshaiah as a Court witness. From the order it is seen that the Court had an obsession that the man who is sought to be examined is an Advocate and dismissed the application. The ground of rejection is that no Advocate can be called to give evidence against the interest of his client. I have no hesitation to hold that Mr. Y. V. Seshaiah did not act as an Advocate while negotiating the sale transaction and the same was admitted by the first respondent himself. Hence the question of invoking the provision of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act does not arise.

( 5 ) THE other ground given by the