B. J. DIVAN, J. M. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) BEFORE leaving the evidence of Habib Ravat we wish to put on record our disapprobation of the manner in which the learned Sessions Judge had put questions to this witness Habib Ravat. The record of the deposition of this witness as appearing in the paper-book as also in the original shows that the learned Sessions Judge has put questions to Habib at considerable length and moreover the learned Sessions Judge put those questions even when the cross-examination of the witness was going on and those interventions by the learned Sessions Judge appear to have been due to the desire of the learned Sessions Judge to take up the questioning of the witness in his own hands. As observed by Lord Greene M. R. in Yuill v. Yuill, 1945 0 LRProbate 15:-A judge who observes the demeanour of the witness while they are being examined by the counsel has from his detached position a much more favourable opportunity of forming a just appreciation than a Judge who himself conducts the examination. If he takes the latter course he so to speak descends into the arena and is liable to have his vision clouded by the dust of the conflict. Unconsciously he deprives himself of the advantage of calm and dispassionate observation. It is further to be remarked as every-one who has had experience of these matters knows that the demeanour of a witness is apt to be very different when he is being questioned by the judge from what it is when he is being questioned by counsel particularly when the judges examination is as it was in the present case prolonged and covers practically the whole of the crucial matters which are in issue. These observations of Lord Greene M. R. were cited with approval by Chagla C. J. in Yusuf H. Abbas v. Bhagwandas P. Nangpal, 51 BLR 523 and he observed:-A Judge trying a case is not a liberty to take the witnesses in the case into his own hand instead of leaving counsel to discharge their functions for which they are briefed and paid. In so acting the Judge puts himself under a handicap because any comments that he may make on the demeanour of witnesses cannot carry any weight with the Court of appeal. In so acting the Judge puts himself under a handicap because any comments that he may make on the demeanour of witnesses cannot carry any weight with the Court of appeal. WE are constrained to say that in the instant case by taking the witness in his own hand the learned Sessions Judge has descended into the arena and his vision was bound to be clouded by the dust of conflict. The learned trial Judge has questioned this witness Habib Ravat by interrupting the counsel in the course of the examination-in-chief and also in cross-examination. Of course under the Indian Evidence Act it is always open to the Presiding Judge to put such questions as he thinks proper at any stage of the deposition of a witness; but at the same time propriety and judicial aloofness demand that ordinarily only at the end of the deposition of a witness after the examination-in-chief cross-examination and re-examination if any are over if the Judge feels that some material aspect has been left out that he should put appropriate questions to the witness concerned; but no appearance should be given on the record or to anyone that the Judge was taking the examination of the witness in his own hand. In the instant case we may point out that by taking up the examination of the witness in his own hand in the manner in which he did the learned trial Judge obviously descended into the arena and allowed his vision to be clouded by the dust of the conflict as Lord Greene M. R. has put it in Yuills case (supra) because subsequently while appreciating the evidence of Habib he has not been able to take a detached view and because of the clouding of his vision he came to the conclusion that he did in the instant case. .