ANIL VISHNU ANTURKAR Vs. CHANDRAKUMAR POPATLAL BALDOTA

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 23/3/2015 directing Petitioner to remain present on 27/3/2015 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 4/4/2015. Petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the said witness summons by this petition. By an ad-interim order dtd. 31/3/2015, 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 dtd. 11/1/2004 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 Sec. 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.