Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 775 (AP)

Billa Venkat Papi Reddy v. A. Kishan Rao

2003-06-20

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2003
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) SINCE the point involved in these three revision petitions is the same they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THESE three revisions arise out of the orders passed in the three suits, in which respondent is the defendant, permitting him to examine his earlier counsel, Sri P. Ramgopal Rao as a witness on his behalf. ( 3 ) IN all the three suits, revision petitioners who are the plaintiffs have adduced their evidence and the cases are being posted for evidence on behalf of the respondent, i. e. , the defendant in the three suits. Mr. P. Ramgopal Rao, who was appearing for the respondent gave up his Vakalath since respondent wanted to examine him as a witness on his behalf to speak about execution of Ex. B. 20, said to be an agreement between the respondent (defendant) and a third party to the suit. When Mr. Ramgopal Rao was put in the witness box as a witness on behalf of the respondent, revision petitioners took an objection that he cannot be examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent in view of Section 126 of Evidence Act. When the Trial Court sustained the objection respondent preferred CRP Nos. 4816, 4817 and 4818 of 2001 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his common order dated 22-3-2002, set aside the said order of the Trial Court and held that in the event of the revision petitioners persisting in their objection to examine Mr. P. Ramgopal Rao, directed both the parties to file their affidavits, and other material on which they wish to rely on before the Trial court, and gave a direction to the Trial court to consider the objection of revision petitioners afresh on merits on the basis of the affidavits and the material produced. After both the parties filed their affidavits, as per the directions of this Court, by the orders under revision, the learned Trial Judge overruled the objection of the revision petitioners and permitted the respondent to examine Mr. P. Ram Gopal Rao, as a witness on his behalf on the point relating to the execution of Ex. B. 20. Hence, these revisions. ( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Mandhani, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that since the defendant and other executants of Ex. P. Ram Gopal Rao, as a witness on his behalf on the point relating to the execution of Ex. B. 20. Hence, these revisions. ( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Mandhani, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that since the defendant and other executants of Ex. B. 20 obtained the opinion from Mr. P. Ram Gopal Rao, it is clear that both of the them engaged him as their counsel for preparation of Ex. B. 20 and so unless the other executant (s) of Ex. B. 20 also give their consent for examining Mr. Ramgopal Rao. Mr. Ramgopal Rao, is incompetent to speak about execution of ex. B. 20 in view of Section 126 of Evidence act. He placed strong reliance on a Full bench decision of Bombay High Court in an Attorney, In re, AIR 1925 Bom. 1 (FB), where it is held that in case a legal practitioner is engaged by two parties, he cannot make any disclosure in proceedings between a third party and one of his clients without consent of both of his clients, though as between them there can be no secrecy, and also a decision of a learned single Judge of Lahore High Court in hakam v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Lahore 269, where it is held that a Pleader couldn t disclose a confidential communication without the consent of his client. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant relying on Kalikumar v. Rajkumar, AIR 1932 calcutta 148, where it was held that in order to attract Section 126 of Evidence Act the communication by a party to the pleader must be of confidential nature and on p. Rajamma v. P. Chintaiah, 1973 Crl. L. J 1489, and P. G. Anantasayanam v. Miriyala sathiraju, AIR 1998 AP 335 , where it is held that if the communication made by a client to an advocate is already disclosed by way of a notice. Section 126 of Evidence act does not prohibit the party from examining the advocate to prove the notice, contends that since Ex. B20 is already on record the question of the revision petitioners objecting to the examination of Mr. Ramgopal Rao on the ground of privilege under Section 126 of Evidence Act does not arise. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT wants to examine mr. P. Ramgopal Rao, to establish that he and another person had executed Ex. B20 in his (Mr. B20 is already on record the question of the revision petitioners objecting to the examination of Mr. Ramgopal Rao on the ground of privilege under Section 126 of Evidence Act does not arise. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT wants to examine mr. P. Ramgopal Rao, to establish that he and another person had executed Ex. B20 in his (Mr. P. Ramgopal Rao s ) office. Objection of revision petitioners for the defendant examining Mr. Ramgopal Rao as his witness is that execution of a document implies everything, including communication of confidential nature to the advocate for preparing the document and so Mr. P. Ramgopal Rao, the advocate who is said to have prepared it i. e. , Ex. B-20 cannot be examined without the consent of the other executant (s) of Ex. B. 20. I am unable to agree with the said contention because question of privilege arises only when either the advocate or the client are asked to disclose the professional communication made between them. When the communication is put in the form of writing and is made known to others there is no confidentiality for either the client or the advocate claiming privilege under Section 126 of Evidence act. In view of the ratio in P. Rajamma s case (supra) and P. G. Anantasayanam s case (supra), Ex. B. 20 ceases to be a confidential communication, falling within the ambit of section 126 of Evidence Act. Therefore, respondent can examine Mr. P. Ramgopal rao to establish that Ex. B. 20 was executed in his (Mr. P. Ramgopal Rao s) office. But, this does not give liberty to the respondent to elicit what the other executants of Ex. B. 20 stated to him i. e. , Mr. Ram gopal Rao, at the time of its execution, because the same would fall within ambit of section 126 of Evidence Act. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, I find no irregularity or illegality in the orders of the trial Court rejecting the objection of the revision-petitioners ( 7 ) HENCE, I find no merits in the revisions and so revision petitions are, dismissed. No costs.