The main legal point established is that S.154 of the Indian Evidence Act allows a party to cross-examine his own witness at the discretion of the court, and this provision applies to both criminal and civil cases.

M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

Can a party to a civil suit request the court for permission to cross-examine the witness cited by himself? This is the question posed for decision in this case.

2. In answer to the suit for money in respect of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- brought by the respondent herein, the defendant (revision petitioner herein) set up a counterclaim for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. It was alleged that the defendant's title deeds were given to the plaintiff; that he borrowed Rs. 25,000/- from one Vinod by pledging the document to him; that ultimately the defendant had to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/-to Vinod and that in the circumstances, the plaintiff was liable to pay the defendant the said amount of Rs. 25,000/-. In order to prove the contention, the defendant cited the said Vinod as a witness. Vinod, however, did not support the defence case when examined in court. A motion was subsequently made for re-opening evidence and to recall Vinod for subjecting him to cross-examination. As per the impugned order the trial court dismissed both the applications. It is aggrieved by this common order that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Sri. A. Mohamed Mustaque, who argued the case of the revision petitioner, submitted that the trial court has proceeded on wrong premises in so far as the reason given in the impugned order for denying the request of the petitioner is that there is no previous statement available before court based on which a cross-examination could be permitted. According to the counsel, whether there is a previous statement or not and whether the case involves application of criminal law or civil law, the provisions of S.154 of the Indian Evidence Act would be applicable and the defendant, in the circumstances was fully justified in making the motion in question.

4. In order to appreciate the questions involved, it is necessary to make a brief survey of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and the Scheme of examination of witnesses contemplated therein.

5. S.134 of the Evidence Act provides that the examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief and that the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. S.139 provides that a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness. The aforesaid provision indirectly indicates that it is possible to cross-examine even a witness summoned by a party to produce a document provided he is summoned as a regular witness. Under S.141, any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question. Under S.142, leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. The said provision would indicate that if the Court permits, it is open to put even leading questions to a witness in examination-in-chief. S.143 provides that leading questions may be asked in cross

examination.

6. S.154 of the Evidence Act which is the main provision that comes up for interpretation here provides as follows:

"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".

It may be clarified here that the provisions aforementioned are not merely confined to application before Criminal Courts; but are equally applicable to the civil courts as well. -No doubt, in civil cases previous statements as available in criminal cases may not be existing. That, however, is no reason to disallow a party from cross-examining his witness invoking power under S.154. It may also not be correct to say that a witness can be cross-examined only after declaring him as hostile. The expression