AVINASH SOMAKANT BHATE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein challenge the order passed by the learned Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Kakinada and confirmed by the learned District Judge, Kakinada in A. T. A. No. 25 of 1994. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be stated in brief. The petitioners are landlords. In the proceedings pending before the Trial Court the Court granted permission to the tenant/respondent to summon advocate, who had issued a reply notice on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 s father on the ground that it was necessary to prove the said notice and that the copy of the said notice was lost. The application was opposed by the father of petitioner No. 1 on the ground that summoning the advocate for proving the notice sent on behalf of the client, was not permissible under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). Section 126 of the Act is as follows : "no barrister, attorney, pleader of vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney

Click Here to Read the rest of this document