The main legal point established in the judgment is that the immunity envisaged under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act is not an absolute bar on the lawyer of the adversarial party for being summoned in all circumstances and certain exemptions have been provided.

ORDER

Arun Monga, J. (Oral). - The instant revision petition has been filed through the legal heirs of Amrit Lal (since deceased), for setting aside the order dated 07.03.2020 (Annexure P-l) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha, whereby application filed by the petitioner/ defendant for discarding examination-in-chief of PW-1 Sarwinder Singh Grewal, Advocate in Civil Suit No. 490 of 2016, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking possession of the shop in question from the petitioner/defendants. At the time of adducing evidence, plaintiff/respondent tendered affidavit of Sarwinder Singh Grewal, Advocate as PW-1. The said advocate had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction titled as "Gurbachan Kaur v. Kanta Devi". Gurbachan Kaur was the mother of defendant Amrit Lal(since deceased) and after the death of Gurbachan Kaur, Amrit Lal and other legal heirs were impleaded in the suit duly represented by Sh. Sarwinder Singh Grewal, Advocate. That suit was later on compromised and consequently withdrawn on 19.08.2010. Since Sarwinder Singh Grewal had represented the petitioner/defendants in that suit, as such he cannot appear as witness and depose his testimony against the petitioner/defendants. The petitioner accordingly filed an application before the learned trial Court for discarding the testimony of PW-1 Sarwinder Singh Grewal which was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2020. Hence, the instant revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since PW-1 Sarwinder Singh Grewal had remained counsel for the petitioner/defendants, he cannot appear as a witness against them and the same is contrary to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that his examination-in-chief tendered vide affidavit Annexure P-3 is liable to be discarded.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent denies that any compromise in the said civil suit had ever taken place.

5. I have heard learned counsels of the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to argue that the plaintiff/respondent could not have summoned the erstwhile lawyer of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant to depose against him. He submits that exchange of information between the erstwhile lawyer and the client(defendant) is privileged and, therefore, the immunity envisaged under Section 126 ibid debars the erstwhile lawyer of the petitioner to appear as a witness against him. For ready reference Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-

"126. Professional communications:- No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless withhis 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 communication made in furtherance of any [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 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 section continues after the employment has ceased."

7'. A perusal of Section 126 ibid indeed prohibits a lawyer from divulging any communicat