Civil Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.3.2009 Satish Chander ..... Petitioner vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for production of documents for inspection was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents no. 1 to 3/ defendants no. 1 to 3 in their written statement had taken the plea that they had taken the action in the matter on the basis of a legal opinion sought. It is this legal opinion which was being sought by the petitioner for inspection. The dispute in the present case is regarding release of electric connection to respondent no. 4. The petitioner claims that he is owner in possession of the suit property where one electric connection is already existing and second connection cannot be released to any person especially when he is not owner-in-possession thereof. Though initially relief was sought against respondent no. 4 but he was not impleaded as one of the defendants. Later on, he became party to the suit. Learned court below granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, however, after respondent no. 4 was impleaded as one of the defendants, the application for vacation/ modification of the interim order was filed, which is pending. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The petitioner is a plaintiff in the suit, for the relief he is claiming therein, he has to stand on his own legs. A communication between Advocate and his client is certainly a privileged one. It is not the Civil Revision No. 1723 of 2009 (2) stage where the petitioner can ask for the production thereof. If a stand has been taken by the defendants/respondents in their written statement regarding that and the same is produced in defence, the petitioner may take appropriate steps/remedies at that time. It is a matter of evidence to be led by the parties. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 27.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge