IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 RP NO. 447 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2024 IN OP(C) NO.545 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:

MATHEW SEBASTIAN,ADVOCATE AGED 78 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN, PIN - 682017 BY ADVS.

M.BALAGOVINDAN LAL KUMAR N.

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:

1 PAULOSE AGED 60 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, PALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669

2 P.V.THOMAS AGED 75 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, PALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669

3 FR BABU JOHN AGED 52 YEARS S/O. JOHN, PALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669

4 RAJU AGED 60 YEARS S/O. OUSEPH PALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669

5 KURIACHAN.P.P.

AGED 63 YEARS S/O PAULOSE, PUTHUSSERRY MOLE HOUSE, KADAKKANADUKARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHU NADU, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686669 6 GEORGE AGED 77 YEARS S/O PAULOSE, KPUTHUSSERY MOLEL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686669

7 MARIAMMA AGED 67 YEARS W/O. ULAHANNA, KATTUCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 686669

8 KUMARAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, PALLATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 686669

9 SIVAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KADAKKANADUKARA,MAZUVANOOR VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686669

10 KUMARI AGED 60 YEARS W/O. SIVAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669

11 TINTO AGED 37 YEARS D/O. SIVAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 686669 12 ANEESH AGED 40 YEARS H/O. TINTO PARAKKAL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM., PIN – 686669 ADV.P.THOMAS GEEVARGHESE - R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2024 The petitioner, a stranger to O.P.(C)No.545/2024, seeks review of the judgment dated 29.02.2024 in the said Original Petition. By virtue of the above judgment, Ext.P7 order of the learned Munsiff, Perumbavoor - which rejected the fifth defendant's request to examine a witness, as per a witness schedule - was set aside. The judgment under review permitted the fifth defendant (petitioner in the Original Petition above referred) to examine the review petitioner, who was the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in the suit originally. The review petitioner/counsel seeks review of the said judgment, essentially on ground that he cannot be compelled to be a witness in view of the privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act.

2. Heard Sri.M.Balagovindan, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri.P.Thomas Geevarghese, learned counsel for the contesting 1^st respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner raised three grounds. The first is based on the privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act, which prohibits disclosure of any communication between the client and a lawyer. The second contention stems from Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice, as per which, a vakalath is liable to be attested; and going by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, proof of a document which is required in law to be attested has to be adduced by examining atleast one of the attesting witnesses. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the proper course is to examine an attesting witness; and not to call the counsel for examination straight away. Thirdly, it was pointed out that the counsel, who is sought to be examined has now relinquished the vakalath, which fact is admitted in the Original Petition preferred by the 1^st responden