2022:BHC-AS:32325 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3359 OF 2015 Anil Vishnu Anturkar Age adult Occ:- Senior Advocate Residing at :- Flat No. 2, 1st Floor, Shri Radhey Apartment, Plot No. 44, United Western Society, Vitthal Mandir Road, Karve Nagar, Pune-411 053 ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Chandrakumar Popatlal Baldota Age Adult Occ:- Not known R/at 2417-A, Exhibition Road, Pune-411 0001.

2. Shri D. E. Bharucha Age Adult Occ:- Not Known

3. Aban Dara Bharucha Age Adult Occ: Not Known No. 2 to 5 are resident of

4, Dr. Coyaji Road, Pune-411 001. … Respondents -----

Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Phatak and Mr.

Sugandh Deshmukh for petitioner.

Mr. S. N. Chandrachood for respondent no.1.

-----

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA J.

DATE : 21st DECEMBER 2022 JUDGMENT:-

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is a designated Senior Advocate of this Court is impugning the issuance of witness summons dated 23rd March, 2015 directing Petitioner to remain present on 27th March, 2015 at 11.00 a.m. before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for giving evidence in Special Civil Suit No. 1209 of 2004, which date was at the time of filing of this petition fixed for 4th April, 2015. Petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the said witness summons by this petition. By an ad-interim order dated 31st March, 2015, continued from time to time, the impugned witness summons has been stayed in terms of prayer clause [B] to the petition.

2. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned witness summons at Exhibit-D, page 22 to the petition requires Petitioner to remain present before the Civil judge, Senior Division, Pune and produce an office copy of the letter dated 11th January, 2004 written by the petitioner to his client Shri Dara Bharucha, residing at 4. Dr. Coyaji Road, Pune-411 001, a photocopy whereof has been produced by the respondent no.1 in Special Civil Suit No. 1209 of 2004. The said communication has been annexed at Exhibit B to the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel states, on instructions, that Mr. Dara Bharucha already dead.

3. Learned senior counsel would submit that the said communication is a professional communication, an opinion which is protected as a privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the “Evidence Act”). He would submit that the application for issuance of witness summons has been made by the respondent no.1 to this petition. Learned Senior Counsel submits that till date no copy of the plaint in the said civil suit has been received by Petitioner. He would submit that although it appears that respondent no.1 is a plaintiff to the said Special Civil Suit No. 1209 of 2004, however, since Petitioner is not having copy of the plaint of the said Special Suit, Petitioner is not in a position to say for what purpose the said special suit has been filed against Shri Bharucha. That petitioner is also not aware of the other defendants in the said suit. That the names and addresses have been taken from the website.

4. Mr. Kumbhakoni, would further submit that a photocopy of the letter written by Petitioner to his client Shri Dara Bharucha on 11th January, 2004 has been produced by respondent no.1, which has been annexed as Exhibit B to the petition. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said communication being an opinion/advice from a senior lawyer to his client is a “privileged communication” as per the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act. He draws the attention of this Court to Section 126 of the Act to submit that no barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purposes 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