Judgment:
ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. In this revision, refusal of the lower Court to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to cross-examine her own witness P.W.3 Under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act is the controversy which has fallen for consideration before this Court.
2. Petitioner instituted a Suit in O.S.No. 98 of 1988 for permanent injunction against the respondent basing on a registered sale deed dated 27-5-1988 stated to have been executed by one Venkatachalapathi. Issues were also framed in the said suit on 5-7-1989. The defendant in the said suit has also filed a separate suit O.S.No 117 of 1988, against the said Venkatachalapathi and the petitioner herein who have figured as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, for specific performance basing on the suit agreement dated 22-3-1981 executed by said. Venkatachalapathi in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 117 of 1988.
3. Since the subject matter of suit property in both suits is one and the same, a joint memo was filed for trial of these two suits jointly which was ordered by the lower Court. Trial was commenced and the evidence was being recorded in O.S.No. 98 of 1988.
4. The petitioner/plaintiff herein examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked Ex.A-1 which is the registered sale deed executed by one Venkatachalapathi. Another witness P.W.2 who is the attestor of Ex.A-1 was also examined Petitioner has also examined P.W.3 Venkatachalapathi who is the vendor under Ex.A-1. In the chief-examination P. W.3 deposed that as on the date of sale of the suit land, possession of the land was not handed over to the plaintiff. However, he admitted the fact of execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving money. He also deposed that his father is not aware of the sale transaction with regard to the suit land with the plaintiff.
5. At that stage, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff found that P.W.3 is making a false statement with regard to the delivery of possession of the suit property which is factually incorrect and is not in accordance with Ex. A-1. In that background, counsel for the petitioner deferred the chief-examination of P.W.3 on the ground that P-W.3 has to be declared as hostile and desired to cross-examine P.W.3.
6. The lower Court on examination of the provisions Under Section 154 of the Evidence Act held that declaring a witness of a party as hostile is not permissible in civil proceedings but only permissible in criminal proceedings. The lower Court, thus, held that cross-examination of P.W.3 by the petitioner/plaintiff is not permissible as P.W.3 cannot be treated as hostile in civil proceedings and directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce P.W.3 for cross-examination on behalf of the defendant in O.S.No. 98/88 and on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 117/88. For production of P.W.3, the date is fixed as 8-11-1994. Aggrieved by the said direction of the District Munsif Piler in O.S.No.98 of 1988 dated 25-10-1994, the present civil revision petition is filed.
7. During the course of hearing of the revision, this Court felt that in the absence of any representation being made on behalf of the respondent, proper assistance is needed in order to resolve the ticklish issue raised in this CRP and therefore, the assistance of Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, Advocate of this Court is sought as Amicus Curiae.
8. I have heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, Amicus Curiae, at length.
9. For the appreciation of the issue raised in this revision, the provision Under Section 154 of the Evidence Act is extracted hereunder:
Question by party to his own witness:
'The Court, may, in its discretion, permit the person who called a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.'
10. A reading of the provision makes it clear that the Court may permit a party to cross-examine his own witness which right is normally available to adverse party.
11. The implication of Section 154 of the Evidence Act has fallen for consideration before various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. The Courts have held in series of decisions that Section 154 of the Evidence Act does not say anything about declaring a witness hostile but however, provided that the Court in its discretion permit a person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Courts have also held if the witness discloses a hostile animus against the party who called him, in such circumstances, such party shall be permitted to cross-examine. Permission to cross-examine should be given if a witness unexpectedly makes an adverse statement in chief-examination. The principle governing granting of permission to a party to cross-examine his own witness depends upon the nature of hostility exhibited by a witness which would affect the interest of the party. A discretion is vested in the Court either to grant permission or reject it to cross-examine his own witness. Court must satisfy that the statement of a witness exhibits an element of hostility and he has resoled from the earlier stand.
12. On a reading of the provision and the various decisions of several Courts on this aspect, I am inclined to say, mere is no embargo to cross-examine a witness by the party who calls the witness even in civil proceedings. The provision Under Section 154 of the Evidence Act does not distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings. What all the provision postulates is that a party could be permitted to cross-examine his own witness if such witness has exhibited an element of hostility and the Court must satisfy itself as to whether such cross-examination could be permitted or not. The words so used in the provision are 'The Court, may, in its discretion permit the person to put any question.........' Legislature has guardedly used the word 'may' while giving discretion to the Courts to grant permission or not. The Court must satisfy itself on the question of permitting a party to cross-examine his own witness. This permission, however, is not as a matter of right Therefore, it is clear mat there is no embargo in the provision Under Section 154 of the Evidence Act to restrict the benefit of cross-examination of one's own witness only to criminal proceedings.
13. The lower Court held that the provision Under Section 154 of the Evidence Act does not provide for cross-examination of a witness in civil proceedings. This finding, in my view, is improper as a plain reading of Section 154 of the Evidence Act makes it abundantly clear that no distinction is contemplated between civil and criminal proceedings. As such, I hold that there is no embargo in the said provision to restrict the benefit of cross-examination of one's own witness only to criminal proceedings, but it equally applies to civil proceedings as well.
14. As discussed above, the view of the lower Court is erroneous on this aspect and the order of the lower Court which is impugned in this revision is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The petitioner plaintiff is entitled to seek for cross-examination of his witness P.W.3.
15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.