Judgment SATYESHWAR ROY, J. Broad facts are not in dispute. The matter was heard at length at the admission state and is being disposed of on merit. 2. The petitioner filed an application in the suit filed by the opposite parties for his eviction, for summoned as Mangal Singh, father-in-law of opposite party no. 1, as his witness and Mangal Singh was summoned as witness of the petitioner defendant. It is alleged by the petitioner that Mangal Singh refused to accept summons, but appeared in court and filed an application that he may be examined as witness for the defendant-petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had no knowledge that Mangal Singh had appeared in couth Mangal Singh was, therefore, not examined by the petitioner on 16.8. 1985 and the evidence of the petitioner was closed. However an application was filed by him for recalling the order and on 17.8.1985 the order was recalled and the petitioner was allowed to produce his witness, i.e. Mangal Singh. on that very date an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner in which he prayed that he would be allowed to put questions to Mangal Singh as might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party as provided under section 154 of the Evidence Act, (the Act) The order passed by the court below on that application is the subject matter of is application. 3. The court below held that the permission may be granted after starting of examination-in-chief of Mangal Singh Mr. Banarjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that for giving permission to the petitioner as provided under Section 154 of the Act, it is not necessary to examine in Chief Mangal Singh; on the other hand Mr. Eqbal, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that only during examination in chief of Mangal Singh if the court is satisfied, question of granting permission will arise. 4. Order of examination of witness is that be shall be first examined-in-chief, cross-examined by the adversary (if the advance party so desires) then re-examined (if the party calling him so desires). According to Mr. Banarjee, in this case Mangal Singh need not be examined in Chief first and according to Mr. Eqbal he must be so examined. Mr. Benerjee took that state because the petitioner wants to put question to the witness which might be put in cross-examination. According to Mr. Banarjee, in this case Mangal Singh need not be examined in Chief first and according to Mr. Eqbal he must be so examined. Mr. Benerjee took that state because the petitioner wants to put question to the witness which might be put in cross-examination. The question is at what stage the permission may be given? In my opinion, there is no scope of any Confusion on this question section 137 of the Act, provides the definition, if I may use that expression, of examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. In all cases, when a witness is examined initially by the party who calls him is called examination-in-chief Examination of Mangal Singh by the petitioner shall be examination-in-chief even if the court allows the petitioner to put question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the edversery and as the opposite parties shall be entitled to examine him that examination shall be cross-examination. Permission may be given by court under section 154 even at the stage of re-examination and in that case the adversery must be given opportunity to cross-examine the witness Dahyabhai G. Thakker V. State of Gujrat Putting questions after obtaining permission under section 154 and cross examination are two different concept, although loosely with regard to the former the expression cross-examination is also used. 5. Next question is when should court give the permission ? In Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration with reference to section 154 of the Act. it was observed that granting of permission is not conditional on the witness being declared "adverse" or "hostile", It was further observed that :- “...It is to be liberally exercised whether the court from the witness’s demeanour. temper attitude bearing, or the tenor, and tendency of his answers, or from a perusal of his previous inconsistent statement or otherwise thinks that the grant of such permission is expedient to extract the truth and to do justice…" It is, therefore, clear that before permitting the petitioner to ask question to Mangal Singh, which the adversery could have put in cross-examination, the court is required to be satisfied whether the court should exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Banerjee, contended that there was enough material on record for the court to form an opinion whether discretion under section 154 of the Act, should be exercised in favour of the petitioner and according to Mr. 6. Mr. Banerjee, contended that there was enough material on record for the court to form an opinion whether discretion under section 154 of the Act, should be exercised in favour of the petitioner and according to Mr. Eqbal there is no material. Whether there is already sufficient material or not, is for the trial court to be satisfied; in this case it has not recorded any finding on this. Unless the court is satisfied. As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Satpal’s case (ibid) there is no question of granting permission to the petitioner to take recourse to section 154 so far Mangal Singh was concerned. Under what circumstances the power ought to be exercised have been laid down by the Supreme Court. That being the legal position, the court below shall have to re-consider the application of the petitioner. 7. It is therefore, just that the court will hear the parties again on the application filed by the petitioner and pass fresh or on the same this application is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for passing fresh order after bearing the parties. Application allowed.