Section 154 of the Evidence Act allows a party to put leading questions to their own witness with the court's permission, but this does not amount to declaring the witness hostile. The purpose of Section 154 is to allow the court to test the truthfulness of the witness's testimony through cross-examination.

JUDGMENT :

Barman, J. - The Plaintiff is the Petitioner in this civil revision directed against an order of the trial court rejecting the Plaintiff Petitioner's application for allowing him to put leading questions to his own witness u/s 154 Evidence Act.

2. The matter arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff on a promote dated February 20, 1956 for Rs. 4500/- against Defendants 1 and 2, Defendant No. 1 being the alleged executants of the said pronote and Defendant No. 2 being the alleged surety. The Defendants denied the alleged execution of the said pronote and stated that there was no consideration there for. The defence story is that Defendant No. 1 was cultivating some Bhogra land under the Plaintiff; that the Plaintiff used to take signature of Defendant No. 1 on blank paper over revenue stamps on various occasions for facilitating payment of rent and it is said that the Plaintiff might have utilised one such paper for fabricating the suit pronote. On June 20, 1961 the trial of the suit began. The first witness called on behalf of the Plaintiff was the scribe who is said to be a retained Pleader of the Plaintiff. In examination-in-chief the said scribe witness is said to have given evidence against the Plaintiff. Thereupon on the said date the Plaintiff made an application before the trial court for allowing the Plaintiff to put leading questions u/s 154 Evidence Act to elicit the truth. The learned trial Court rejected the Plaintiff's said application. Hence this civil revision.

3. The only point for consideration is the scope and ambit of Section 154 Evidence Act which is set out as follows:

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.

The principles which find statutory recognition in Section 154 are these: Where one's own witness unexpectedly makes statements adverse to his interest, it is common fairness that the Judge should permits such statement to be tested by cross-examination if the evidence is to be relied upon and if cross-examination be disallowed the evidence is of no value. The utility of cross-examination is supposed to be that it is means whereby the court can more readily get the truth out of the witness. Normally, liberty to cross-examine is somewhat freely given without any intention of declaring in advance against the reputation of the witness. The ordinary rule,-that leading questions must not on material points be put by a party to his own witness, has its basis in the circumstances that as the party chooses what witnesses he will call, a witness is very often anxious to assist the party on whose behalf he is called. The rule is to guard against the bias of the witness in favour of the side in support of which his evidence is sought. Where no such bias need be apprehended tile rule loses much of its utility. The unwilling or unfriendly witness is ex hypothesi one who cannot be led. The rule is not relaxed because the witness has already forfeited all right to credit but because his evidence will be more fully given and his credit more adequately tested by questions put in a more pointed and searching way. Thus to obtain permission to cross-examine, all that is necessary is that the witness's testimoney should have been adverse to the party calling him and the value of the witness's testimoney in such cases is to be judged in the light of the results of such cross-examinations.

4. In this case, the learned trial court apparently missed the principles of Section 154. The decision of this Court in Krutibas Sahu Vs. Madhab Das, which the learned trial court relied is clearly distinguishable, on facts, from the present case. In the decision cited above, there was an application by the Plaintiff for declaring one of his own witnesses as a hostile witness and to permit the Plaintiff to cross-examine his said witness. What this Court decided in the said case was that such permission could not