JUDGMENT :

In these original petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who had filed claim petitions, impugns separate orders passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.287 of 2018 dated 31.01.2022, I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.S.No.353 of 2018 and I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.S.No.354 of 2018 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent/the plaintiff in the suit. No representation for respondents 2 and 3, though notice served on them.

3. Going by the orders impugned, it appears that respective petitions filed by the petitioner in the claim petition seeking permission to put leading questions to the witnesses shown in the list, was allowed by the learned Munsiff by a non-speaking order. The orders impugned in all these petitions is as under;

“No counter. Heard. Allowed.”

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below went wrong in passing such an order, since putting leading questions directly to a witness is not permissible in the eye of law when there is objection by the other side and the procedure for the same is different. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks interference in separate orders impugned.

5. Opposing this contention, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that since the first respondent apprehended that the witnesses in the list, sought to be examined, would not support the case of the plaintiff and in anticipation of the said fact, the plaintiff filed the above petitions to put leading questions during their examination. Therefore, the orders impugned do not require any interference.

6. In view of the rival contentions, the legal questions pose for consideration are;

(1) What is a leading question? And when leading questions can be asked?

(2) What is the procedure to be followed for asking leading questions, if putting leading questions objected by the adverse party?

(3) What is the provision in the Evidence Act dealing with putting leading questions by the party to a witness who calls the witness?

(4) Which provision in the Evidence Act enables the party who calls a witness to cross-examine his own witness?

(5) Can a party in a civil suit request the Court for permission to cross-examine the witness called by him, as provided under Section 154 of the Evidence Act?

7. In order to answer the above queries, reference to the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act is necessary. Section 135 of the Evidence Act provides that the order in which witnesses are to be produced and examined. It is provided that production and examination of witnesses shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.

8. Order 18 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with the procedure of hearing of suits and examination of witnesses. As per Order 18 Rule 1, the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin. Thus, normally, the right to begin examination of the witnesses is that of the plaintiff or the petitioner, as the case may be, subject to the condition stipulated in Order 18 Rule 1.

9. Examination of witnesses generally includes three stages as provided under Section 137 of the Evidence Act. Examination-in-chief or chief-examination is examination of a witness by the party who calls him. Cross-examination means examination of a witness by the adverse party and re-examination means examination of a witness by the party who called him subsequent to cross-examination.

10. Thus, it is clear that when a party summons or produces witness/witnesses, the said pa