Advocate-client privilege under Section 126 shields confidential communications unless fraud, illegality, or another statutory exception is shown.

Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 protects confidential communications made to an advocate during professional employment, preserving candid disclosure for legal advice and defence. That privilege is not displaced merely because a summons has been issued, and it yields only where the statutory exceptions apply, such as fraud, illegality, or communications made in furtherance of an unlawful purpose. On the stated facts, no material showed any fraud or illegality, so the advocate could not be compelled to testify and the review court was justified in declining interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether an advocate appearing for the defendants could be summoned and examined as a witness in the suit, and whether the review court was justified in refusing to interfere with the earlier order protecting the advocate under Section 126 of the Evidence Act.

Analysis: The privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 protects confidential communications made to an advocate in the course of professional employment, and its object is to preserve the free and frank disclosure necessary for legal advice and defence. The protection is not displaced merely because summons had initially been issued, and it does not yield on slender or speculative grounds unconnected with fraud, illegality, or communications in furtherance of unlawful purpose. On the facts, no material showed any fraud or illegality, and there was no apparent error warranting review of the earlier order declining to compel the advocate to testify.

Conclusion: The advocate was not liable to be examined as a witness, and the review petition was rightly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bars compelled disclosure of confidential professional communications between an advocate and client unless the statutory exceptions apply, and such privilege cannot be overridden absent a demonstrated legal ground for disclosure.

---