Section 126 of the Evidence Act, 1872, protects communications between an advocate and client from disclosure, unless the communication is made in furtherance of an illegal purpose or fraud.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the Plaintiff. This revision petition arises out of an application filed to review the order, dated 8-12-1981. The factr leading to this revision petition may ba briefly stated ; During the trial in o. S. No, 574 of 1976, the petitioner filed a petition being I. A. No. 1673 of 1981 for summoning Sri. B. V. Raghavayya, Advocate as witness. I. A. No. 167/1981 was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC. On the application, the Court permitted the issue of summons. Subsequently the witnoss for whom the summons were sent took an abjection that he crp 1357 of 1983 dt. 29-11-1983 cannot be summoned as a witness as he is an Advocate appearing for defendants 3 to 8 in the suit. The Court on hearing both sides passed an order on 8-12-1981 that the witness cannot be examined as he has a privilege as an advocate from disclosing the particulars under Section 126 of the Evidence act. To review this order dt. 8-12-1981 the application was filed and the court below dismissed the review petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Sec. 126 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, cannot be pressed into service in the circumstances and further having allowed the issue of summons initially the Court is not justified in revoking the same. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the orders as Section 126 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, comes in aid of the witness who is an Advocate and there is error apparent on the face to attract review. Section 126 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, which controls the decision is as followe :"no barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be pesmitted, 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 or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment;provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure : 1. Any such communications made in furtherance of any illegal purpose :

( 2 ) ANY fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney, Vakil, of in the course of his employment as such showing that any crime or fraud has been committced since the commencement of his employment. It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client. EXPLANATION : The obligation stated in this sec, continues after the employment has ceased".

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in p. Rajamma vs. P. Chmtaiah Jn this decision, the daughter-in law after the death of her husband, sent a notice to her father-in-law for possession of house and this notice was issued through her Advocate and the father-in-law sent a reply notice through advocate Sri. N. Venkataratnam, Guntur in which certain statements alleged to have been defamatory were made. The daughter-in-law filed a complaint under section 500 IPC and in the said case she applied for summons to be issued to Sri, N. Venkatratnam, advocate who gave reply notice containing defamatory statements. The Magisirate rejected the petition. After considering the impact of Sec. 126 of the evidence ACT, 1872, Madhavareddy, J. held that Sri. N. Venkataratnam, advocate can be summoned to prove the notice issued by him and it is only for the purpose of proving that notice that he is being summoned and not to disclose any private or confidential communication between him and the respondent. Further it is held that the communication between the advocate and the respondent having been put in the form of a notice ceases to be confidential communication. In Antony vs. G. S. Naidu one S. Antony in the course of his giving eviden