Important Point—Section 154 of Evidence Act does not make any distinction between civil and criminal cases.

1.O.S.No.347 of 2009, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, is instituted praying to grant preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/6th share in item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties and to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. Defendants 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.720 of 2016 to summon DW.2, namely, Chilpuri Shekaraiah @ Srekaraiah, S/o Mallaiah r/o. Veluru Village, Dharmasagar Mandal, Warangal District to declare him hostile and to crossexamine him by the defendants. The said application was dismissed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge on 11.11.2016, impugned in this revision.

2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.720 of 2016 would disclose that DW.2 filed chief affidavit on 26.08.2016 supporting the stand of the defendants. When he was cross-examined by the plaintiffs, he deposed against his chief-examination and supported the plaintiffs. The defendants, therefore, prayed to declare him hostile and to permit to cross-examine him. The said plea of the petitioners was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs. According to them, in order to divert the issue and to create a false story contrary to the record, chief- examination affidavit was filed on behalf of DW.2. They have also opposed the plea to declare the witness as hostile.

3. Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that invoking Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act in civil cases is not permissible and that Section is invariably invoked in criminal proceedings only. Trial Court held that decision relied by the petitioners is not relevant for the civil cases. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed.

4. Heard Sri B.Ranganatha Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. Podila Hari Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application on the ground that provision in Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted to civil cases. According to the learned counsel, when a wrong deposition was given in cross-examination by the defense witness, opportunity should be given to the defendants to further cross-examine the said witness, who turned hostile and denial of the same would amount to denying the opportunity to rebut the allegations of the plaintiffs. He further submits that even assuming that Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted the trial Court has got inherent powers under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. The application is filed both under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and by exercising inherent powers under Section 151 to do complete justice, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants.

6. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs opposed the claim of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, application is not filed in a bona fide manner to elicit the information to support the stand of the petitioners. This application is filed to drag on the litigation. The suit is of the year 2009 and is at the stage of trial and petitioners are dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. He, therefore, submits that petitioners lack bona fides and that trial Court rightly dismissed the said application.

7. The issues for consideration in this revision are:

(1) Whether Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only to criminal proceedings and has no application to the civil cases as held by the trial Court?;

(2) In what circumstances the trial Court can grant such permission? and

(3) to what relief?

8.1. Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act reads as under:

“S.154. Question by party to his own witness :-- The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.”

8.2. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that it does not make an