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. 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. 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 be granted because Section 154, under which the Plaintiff made the application, as in the present case, says nothing about declaring a witness hostile; in the judgment it was made clear that Section 154 allows a party with the permission of the court at discretion to cross-examine his own witness in the same way as the adverse party; ordinarily a party calling his witness is not allowed to ask him these questions but this ordinary rule is relaxed in Section 154; the purpose of such relaxation can only be to find out if the witness is one of truth and can be relied on, because cross-examination is the most powerful and effective instrument for bringing out and testing truth. It was made amply clear in the said judgment that invoking the aid of Section 154 did not amount to declaring a witness hostile; permission to a party to put any questions to his own witness which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party u/s 154 is far from saying that the witness is hostile whenever his testimony is such that it does not support the case of the party calling him; indeed such a view would seriously undermine the independence, integrity and dignity of a witness in a court of law. It is these basic principle on which the decision in the case cited above was founded relying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tulsiram Shaw Vs. R.C. Pal Ltd.. In that case also an application for declaring a witness hostile was rejected. 5. I had to embark upon this disquisition as the point required clarification. In the present case, the trial court, while feeling bound by the decision of this Court in Krutibas Sahu Vs. Madhab Das, cited above does not appear to have appreciated the principles underlying the said decision and distinguishing features of the case before him. 5. I had to embark upon this disquisition as the point required clarification. In the present case, the trial court, while feeling bound by the decision of this Court in Krutibas Sahu Vs. Madhab Das, cited above does not appear to have appreciated the principles underlying the said decision and distinguishing features of the case before him. In the application before the learned trial court there was no prayer for declaring the witness hostile. In the said application u/s 154 the Plaintiff submitted: That the interest of justice shall suffer unless the Plaintiff is allowed to put leading question u/s 154 Evidence Act. Then the language, in which his prayer in the petition was couched, is in these terms: It is therefore prayed that your honour be pleased to allow the Plaintiff to put leading question u/s 154 Evidence Act to elicit truth. Thus there is no allegation of hostility of the witness. The prayer as made was strictly within the scope of Section 154. Prayer for allowing to put leading questions to a witness was not purported to undermine the independence, integrity and dignity of the witness. Indeed it is clear that the Plaintiff's object was not to discredit the witness but to "elect truth" from the witness as prayed for in the petition. 6. In this view of the case, the order of the learned trial court rejecting the Petitioner's application u/s 154 Evidence Act is set aside as clearly illegal. The Petitioner is allowed to put leading questions to his said witness to elicit truth as prayed for. This civil revision is accordingly allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50/-. Final Result : Allowed