Dismissed

Mathew Sebastian,Advocate v. Paulose

Kerala HC21 May 2024RP/447/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitioner, a counsel for plaintiffs in an underlying suit, sought review of an order requiring his examination, citing Section 126 privilege and Rule 27 regarding attestation. The court dismissed the review, holding Section 126 does not bar examining a lawyer on disputed facts about suit initiation and signature forgery, and granted a commission for his examination due to his age.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; however, commission fixed for examination due to petitioner's advanced age.

Mathew Sebastian,Advocate Vs Paulose — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946

¶5

RP NO. 447 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2024 IN OP(C) NO.545 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶12

..2..

¶13

S/O PAULOSE, KPUTHUSSERY MOLEL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686669

¶14

7 MARIAMMA

¶15

AGED 67 YEARS

¶16

W/O. ULAHANNA, KATTUCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 686669

¶17

8 KUMARAN

¶18

AGED 60 YEARS

¶19

S/O. AYYAPPAN, PALLATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU,

¶20

ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 686669

¶21

9 SIVAN AGED 65 YEARS

¶22

S/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KADAKKANADUKARA,MAZUVANOOR VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686669

¶23

10 KUMARI

¶24

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

¶25

11 TINTO

¶26

AGED 37 YEARS

¶27

D/O. SIVAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 686669

¶28

12 ANEESH AGED 40 YEARS H/O. TINTO PARAKKAL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM., PIN – 686669

¶29

ADV.P.THOMAS GEEVARGHESE - R1

¶30

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶32

..3..

¶33

O R D E R Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2024

¶34

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.

¶35

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶36

..4..

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

witness; and not to call the counsel for

¶40

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶41

..5..

¶42

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 1st respondent herein. It is further stated in the Original Petition that, the proof to be adduced is by way of examining the attesting witnesses. In short, the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that, the attesting witnesses are to be examined first and thereafter, if, and only if, it is required, the counsel concerned can be examined.

¶43

4. In answer to the above submissions, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that the protection under Section 126 is not available and the instant facts will be governed by the provisos to Section 126. The petitioner in the Original Petition (respondent herein and 5^th defendant in the suit) would further urge that his

¶44

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶45

..6..

¶46

contention is not one pertaining to execution of the vakalath, but with respect to the institution of the suit itself, by filing the plaint. Learned counsel would invite this Court's attention to the

¶47

specific contention of the 5^th defendant (petitioner in the Original Petition) in Ext.P2 written statement (produced along with the Original Petition), at paragraph no.3, which is extracted herebelow:

¶48

3 ) 4- ഉഉം 5- ഉഉം വവാദദികളവായദി പപേര് എഴഴുതദിയദിടട്ടുള്ളവർ അനനവായഉം ഫയൽ ചചെയട്ടുവവാൻ ഉപേപദശഉം ചകവാടഴുകഴുകപയവാ , അനനവായതദിൽ ഒപപ്പ് ഇടഴുകപയവാ ചചെയതദിടദിലല . 4- ഉഉം 5- ഉഉം വവാദദികളട്ടുചട ഒപപ്പ് വനവാജമവായദി ഇടപ്പ് അനനവായഉം പബവാധദിപദിച്ചതദിന് 6- ആഉം വവാദദി പപേരദിൽ കഴുന്നതഴുനവാട പപേവാലലീസ് crime രജദിസ്റ്റർ ചചെയതദിടട്ടുള്ളതവാണ . പമൽ നമ്പർ പകസദിചല 6- ആഉം വവാദദി 4- ഉഉം 5- ഉഉം വവാദദികൾക് എതദിചര ബഹഴു ഈ പകവാടതദിയദിൽ O.S.39/2018- ആഉം നമ്പർ ആയദി അനനവായഉം പബവാധദിപദിച്ചപ്പ് വദിചെവാരണയദിൽ ഇരദികഴുന്നതവാണ . 8- ആഉം വവാദദി മറദിയവാമ്മയഴുഉം അനനവായതദിൽ ഒപപ്പ് ചവച്ചദിടട്ടുള്ളതവായദി എനദികപ്പ് അറദിയദിലല .

¶49

5. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the

¶50

dispute is with respect to the very institution of

¶51

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶52

..7..

¶53

the plaint and also with respect to the signatures contained therein. The specific contention urged is that, plaintiffs 4 and 5 have not subscribed their hands to the plaint. Nor had they given any instruction to the counsel to institute a case on their behalf. The contention is that the 6^th respondent has forged their signatures, in respect of which, a criminal case is pending against him. The 5^th defendant in paragraph 3 of the written statement also apprehends that 8^th respondent has also not subscribed her hands to the plaint. It was pointed out that, out of the nine plaintiffs, as many as four have either sworn to an affidavit or filed memo before the trial court, specifically indicating that they have not signed the subject plaint. The third contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, when the suit itself is originated in fraud in the form of forgery, the 5^th defendant has got a right to get the suit dismissed on that count itself, de hors

¶54

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶55

..8..

¶56

and independent of the merits of the matter, wherefore, the evidence sought to be adduced is material.

¶57

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶58

respective parties, this Court finds no admissible cause to review the judgment dated 29.02.2024. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the issue in controversy is not one with respect to the execution of the vakalath. Instead, the specific contention, which is seen raised in the written statement, is with respect to the very institution of the suit itself and the filing of the plaint. Defendants 4 and 5 have not subscribed their hands to the plaint is the contention raised. Apprehension is seen expressed in the written statement that the 8^th plaintiff has also not subscribed her hands to the plaint. According to the 5^th defendant (petitioner in the original petition), it is the 6^th plaintiff who had

¶59

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶60

..9..

¶61

forged the signatures of plaintiffs 4 and 5. From the affidavits sworn to by plaintiffs 4 and 5, the allegation is that, it is the 1^st plaintiff who had forged their signature. In the above referred facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that the attesting witnesses to the vakalath has to be examined first and the counsel need be examined, if and only if, such a course is necessary. There is no attestation contemplated insofar as a plaint is concerned. By any stretch of imagination, the examination of the lawyer concerned cannot be held to be irrelevant or unnecessary, having regard to the peculiar facts circumstances and contentions raised in the suit. The fact that the counsel had relinquished the vakalath will not alter the above referred legal position.

¶62

7. This Court will now deal with a contention

¶63

based on Section 126 of the Evidence Act. Primarily, it requires to be pointed out that the

¶64

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶65

..10..

¶66

protection under Section 126 is available for the communication between a client and his lawyer. Here, the very status of some of the plaintiffs as clients of the review petitioner/lawyer itself is disputed, wherefore the protection under Section 126 cannot be pressed into service. As regards those among the plaintiffs, who dispute the factum of having engaged the review petitioner as their counsel, there is no admitted client – lawyer relationship. That apart, Section 126 of the Evidence Act cannot be propounded to prevent the examination of a lawyer. All what could be claimed based on Section 126 is that a question which may be put during the course of examination which is tabooed by Section 126 is not legally permissible and hence cannot be allowed. What is interdicted is only the disclosure of any communication between the client and a lawyer. Section 126 cannot be conceived as a complete shield from a

¶67

lawyer being examined in a court of law,

¶68

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶69

..11..

¶70

especially in the light of the instant facts and circumstances. The said contention is also therefore repelled.

¶71

8. In the circumstances, this review petition will stand dismissed.

¶72

9. Learned counsel for the review petitioner

¶73

would, however, make a request to the effect that, since the counsel, who is sought to be examined, is aged 78 years, he may be examined by a

¶74

Commission and a date may also be fixed in advance for the same. The first relief is hereby granted and the petitioner in the Original Petition/5^th defendant is directed to take out a Commission to examine the review petitioner. The date for examination will be fixed by the trial court and the same will be informed in advance to the said

¶75

counsel. The suit will be disposed of untrammelled by any of the observations contained in this

¶76

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶77

..12..

¶78

order, or for that matter, in the judgment rendered in the Original Petition.

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶81

¶82

R.P.No.447 of 2024

¶83

..13..

¶84

APPENDIX OF RP 447/2024

¶85

PETITIONER ANNE	XURES
Annexure 1	TRUE COPY OF	THE	PLAI	NT IN	O.S.
	233/2017 BEFORE PERUMBAVOOR DATED	THE 27/0	MU 6/201	NSIFF 7	COURT,
Annexure 2	TRUE COPY OF THE	WRI	TTEN	STATEM	ENT OF
Annexure 3	THE 5TH DEFENDANT THE MUNSIFF'S COU 23/09/2019 TRUE COPY OF	IN RT, THE	O.S. PERU SU	233/2 MBAVOOR MMONS	017 OF DATED DATED
	15/03/2024, PET	ITION	ER	RECEIV	ED A
	SUMMONS FROM	THE	MUN	SIFF	COURT,
	PERUMBAVOOR DATED	21/0	3/202	4
Annexure 4	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 5.7.23	DEFE	NDANT	'S DEP	OSITION
Annexure 5	TRUE COPY OF		THE	ORDE	R IN
	I.A.NO.19/2023 IN THE MUNSIFF'S COU 24/01/2024	O.S RT,	. 23 PERU	3 OF 2 MBAVOOR	017 OF DATED

Mathew Sebastian,Advocate v. Paulose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Sebastian,Advocate v. Paulose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sherly Mathai Vs Susamma Mathai

Anjali Philip @ Anjali Anna Philip Vs the Village Officer

Muhammed Ajmal, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Suneesh P.K Vs the District Geologist

Shiju Thomas Vs the Director of Mining and Geology

Vijayan, Vs M.C.Joseph