Ratios:
a. Sec.126 of the Indian Evidence Act has dual purposes. It saves confidentiality of the communication disclosed to the counsel and also saves counsel from unnecessary harassment.
b. Obligation regarding confidentiality of communication to the counsel continues even after his engagement ceases.
c. Advocate is not to be identified with the parties. His independency is to be protected in the interest of the society.

The respondents in I.A.No.200 of 2007 in O.S.No.46 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Udumalpet are the revision petitioners.

2. The suit in O.S.No.46 of 2006 was preferred by the respondent against the revision petitioners praying for a decree of specific performance on the basis of a sale agreement entered into between the parties on 212. 2005. The said suit was contested by the revision petitioners by filing written statement.

3. While the matters stood thus, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.200 of 2007 seeking permission to summon one Thiru A.R.HariPrasad, Advocate, Udumalpet as a witness on his side to be examined as P.W.4.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.200 of 2007 it was the contention of the respondent that the revision petitioners approached the said counsel for filing a suit on their behalf to declare them as legal heirs of their father Kandasamy Gounder. The said course was adopted as according to the respondent the petitioners have agreed to furnish the legal heir certificate before registration of the property and since they failed to produce the said certificate, the sale deed could not be executed on time.

5. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioners by filing counter. It was their contention that they never approached the counsel by name A.R.Hari Prasad for filing the civil suit on their behalf to declare them as the legal heirs of their deceased father. They have also contended that even if they have approached the said advocate, the respondent cannot call their counsel as a witness against them to speak about the alleged communication without their consent. Accordingly they prayed for dismissal of the application.

6. The learned trial Judge was of the view that there was nothing illegal in calling the Advocate as a witness and accordingly the application was allowed. It is the said order which is impugned in the civil revision petition.

7. According to the respondent, the petitioners have approached the counsel to file a suit for declaration. It was his further contention that he was not in a position to get the document executed on account of the failure of the revision petitioners to produce the legal heir certificate or declaration in respect of their status. Therefore in order to substantiate his contention that the petitioners at one point of time consulted the counsel to file a civil suit, he sought to examine the said counsel as a witness.

8. Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act provides thus:-

"126. Professional communications.

No barrister, attorney, pleader or 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 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 professions 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 1[illegal] purpose.

.(2) Any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment. It is material whether the attention of such barrister, [pleader], attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or no behalf of his client. Explanation:- The obligation started in this section continues after the employment has ceased."

.9. Section 126 of the Evidence Act was introduced to serve dual purpose. This provision protects the party as well as the counsel. The counsel is not expected to disclose or divulge the communication which he has received from his client in his capacity as a