Short Note : The plaintiff filed certain affidavits in support of an interlocutory application. Under order 19, of the CPC the other party was permitted to cross-examine the affidavitees. During cross-examination the witnesses gave apparently a conflicting statement. Earlier in the affidavits they had specifically stated that the plaintiff was in actual possession of the land. In cross-examination, they happened to state that it was the other side who was in actual possession and not the plaintiff. At this stage, a request was made by the plaintiff for necessary permission under section 154 Evidence Act. In the light of the previous statements in affidavits and the version given during the cross-examination, the Court in exercise of its discretion allowed the request. In revision it was contended that no such permission could be granted. Held : The exercise of the discretionary power under section 154 of the Evidence Act is not confined to any particular stage of the examination of a witness. It is not necessary that such power can be exercised before the conclusion of the examination-in-chief or the commencement of the cross-examination or only at any particular stage. The scope of section 154 is wide enough and the discretion is entirely of the Court. When there are circumstances justifying the grant of such permission, the Courts can permit a party to put such questions. If the argument confining the exercise of this power to the stage of examination-in-chief or before the commencement of the cross-examination is accepted, the very purpose of this section will become ineffective because there might be cases where a witness may find it absolutely convenient to make a statement strictly in consonance with his previous version and then to take a somer-sault during the course of cross-examination without taking risk of cross-examination by the party, who called him. Under these circumstances, it would be permissible for the Court to grant permission under section 154 Evidence Act even at the stage of re-examination AIR 1964 SC 1563 , relied on. Revision dismissed.