ORDER M. M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Revision petitioner is the second defendant in O. S.297 of 1987 of the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally. When the first defendant was recalled and examined his counsel sought to prove the deposition given by the second defendant in a criminal case. Its marking was objected to by the second defendant on the ground that it can be marked only for the purpose of contradiction under S.145 of the Evidence Act. 2. Contention of the revision petitioner is that the Court below grievously erred in marking the document ignoring the mandatory requirements under S.145 of the Evidence Act. S.145 enables the marking of a previous statement given by a witness when he is cross examined. As contemplated under S.145 the previous statement can be admitted in evidence after drawing the attention of the maker to it. If the previous statement is intended to contradict a witness due compliance of S.145 must be strictly observed, 3. The weight of authorities is that a witness or a party who appears as a witness should be given an opportunity to explain any previous statement which he had made and which is contrary to his present statement. It is essential that the Court should give an opportunity to the witness to explain the contradiction in his statement. Justice requires that the witness must be treated fairly and be afforded a reasonable opportunity of explaining the contradiction. The general rule is that the contents of a written document cannot be used until the document itself is proved. A departure from the general rule is provided under S.145. It envisages the procedure by which a witness may be contradicted in cross examination by confronting him with his previous statement in writing or reduced into writing. It is important to. bear in mind that the two contradictory statements must have been made by one and the same person. Statement made by one person cannot be contradicted by the statement of another under S.145. 4. First part of S.145 enables the advocate to cross examine a witness regarding his previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing without such writing being shown to him. At first, a witness must be asked whether he made any previous statement in writing or reduced into writing different from his present statement on oath. 4. First part of S.145 enables the advocate to cross examine a witness regarding his previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing without such writing being shown to him. At first, a witness must be asked whether he made any previous statement in writing or reduced into writing different from his present statement on oath. To contradict such a witness by his previous statement the attention of the witness must be drawn to those portions in the deposition which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting his statement. Only when it is intended to contradict by the previous statement in writing or reduced into writing the attention of the witness should be drawn. This is a condition precedent before such contradictory proof can be tendered. 5. S.145 lays down that when it is necessary to contradict a witness as regards his previous statement with the present one his attention must be drawn to it and he must be given an opportunity to explain his stance. The practice of some courts of marking entire deposition of a witness without drawing his attention to the particular portion of it for the purpose of contradiction has to be deprecated. 6. While the first defendant was recalled and examined as per order in LA. 404 of 1990 his counsel asked him whether second defendant had stated in a particular manner when he was examined before the Criminal Court. This question was objected to by the counsel for the second defendant on the ground that that portion of the deposition alone can be used for contradicting the witness who testified before the Criminal Court. The objection was overruled by the Munsiff holding that it is a part of the deposition of the second defendant in the Criminal Court. The Munsiff was not justified in holding so in disregard of S.145 of the Evidence Act. For the reasons stated above, the objection raised by the second defendant is sustained. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.