JUDGMENT:- Heard finally Shri. D. C. Chahande, learned counsel for petitioner widow of Chandrakant and Shri. M. S. Wakil, learned counsel for respondent who also claims to be the widow of same person by name Chandrakant. Looking to nature of controversy Rule is issued in the matter and the same is made returnable forthwith. 2. Shri. Chahande, learned counsel is objecting to the order dated 16.01.2010 whereby the objection of petitioner to proposed examination of Advocate Rawlani, as witness of respondent/plaintiff came to be rejected. The said order was sought to be reviewed and the review has been rejected by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia on 15.02.2010. 3. Shri. Chahande, learned counsel states that Advocate Rawlani was engaged by the petitioner to defend herself and hence said Advocate cannot be examined against petitioner. He has relied upon the provisions of Sections 126 to 129 of the Indian Evidence Act and judgment reported at 1995[2] Civil L.J. 815 : AIR 1996 Ker. 1 (Yo vas Vs. Immanueal) and 1994[1] Civil L.J. 568: AIR 1994 Guj. 31 (Gurunanak Provisions Stores Vs. Duhonumal Savamal), in support of his contentions. He has further invited attention to certain documents to show that those documents do not refer to any customary divorce and alleged customary divorce is not the reason for withdrawal of earlier proceedings. 4. Shri. Wakil, learned counsel for respondent further states that whether customary divorce between It. Chandrakant and petitioner was established or not, is a matter which pertains to appreciation of evidence and cannot be prejudged at this stage. A document of customary divorce is executed between the petitioner and It. Chandrakant and the draft was prepared by Advocate Rawlani. Because of this plea, trial Court has given permission to examine that Advocate. He further states that by examining respondent/plaintiff and some witness necessary cause for recording evidence of Advocate Rawlani is already created. 5. The document alleged to be a document of customary divorce, is already produced on record and effort of respondent/ plaintiff is to prove it. Some evidence in that direction is already recorded and one of the attesting witness on said document. is also examined. The respondent wants to show that Advocate Rawlani has prepared that draft on instructions from petitioner and It. Chandrakant. For said purpose that Advocate is sought to be examined. Some evidence in that direction is already recorded and one of the attesting witness on said document. is also examined. The respondent wants to show that Advocate Rawlani has prepared that draft on instructions from petitioner and It. Chandrakant. For said purpose that Advocate is sought to be examined. It is therefore, apparent that no confidential communication between petitioner and Advocate Rawlani is being brought into picture by respondent lady. The perusal of the judgment in the case of Yovas Vs. Immanuel (supra) shows that there the disclosure of information received by the counsel as such in course of his profession has been gone into. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court has found that the court is not obliged to issue summons when such information received in course of professional communication is sought to be brought on record. Consideration therein in paragraph no. 10 clearly shows that privileged correspondence and opinion of Advocate was sought to be proved and it was not allowed. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gurunanak Provisions Stores Vs. Dulhonumal Savamal (supra). 6. Here the preparation of deed of divorce is not on account of any professional communication. According to respondent said divorce deed is signed by It. Chandrakant as also by petitioner lady. The document exists and effort is to prove that document by examining the Advocate who has brought that document into existence. Proof of execution of such document or its contents by itself is not violative of Section 126 of Evidence Act, 1872. If in the process, any privileged communication or any confidential information or fact contrary to Section 126 to 129 of Indian Evidence Act is sought to be brought on record, petitioner has got every right to object to it and trial court will definitely look into such objection and decide it in accordance with law. Effort to prove customary deed of divorce cannot be said to be one such step in violation of said provisions. Proposed witness is an Advocate with knowledge of his duties to client and professional ethics and he also will not breach the confidence reposed in him by his ex-client i.e. petitioner. Party i.e. respondent summoning him as witness is also aware of statutory limitations in this respect. 7. Proposed witness is an Advocate with knowledge of his duties to client and professional ethics and he also will not breach the confidence reposed in him by his ex-client i.e. petitioner. Party i.e. respondent summoning him as witness is also aware of statutory limitations in this respect. 7. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has attempted to show to this court that the divorce deed is a fabricated document and for that he wanted to rely upon certain other contemporaneous record, it is apparent that such an exercise before this Court is premature and misconceived. The aspect pertains to appreciation of evidence and needs to be decided by the trial Court after recording of evidence. Petitioner has got opportunity to put relevant material to concerned Advocate and other witnesses to substantiated his contentions that no such customary divorce deed was ever reduced into writing or was ever reached between the parties. With this, I find that there is nothing wrong with the application of mind by the trial Court. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to cost. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.