(present respondents No. 3 and 4). Both these defendants, father and son respectively, had refused to depose in the witness box. An adverse inference was drawn against them by the Court, on this aspect as well. 7. An interesting development, meanwhile took place before the Trial Court. PW-7 who was the lawyer of the appellant in the injunction suit, had become an attesting witness of the “sale deed” executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent nos. 1-2. The Trial Court, thus observed that from the deposition of PW-7 during cross-examination, PW-7 had committed a breach of privileged communication and violated Section 126 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 8. No appeal against this Judgement was filed by respondents 3 and 4. All the same, an Appeal was filed5 by respondents 1 and 2 before the Additional District Judge, Jind which was dismissed on 06.03.2012. While reiterating the findings of the Trial Court, the First Appellant Court had observed that since PW-7 was the attesting