ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two revision petitions, namely, Civil Revision Nos. 612 of 1997 and 796 of 1997. 2. The brief facts which have led to the filing of these petitions be noticed as under: Bharosilal and two others figured as defendants in a suit filed by Gopal, respondent No. 1 in both the petitions. The dispute is with regard to an agreement to sell. The plaintiff has closed his evidence. When the defendants were leading their evidence, they summoned one Jagmohan. This Jagmohan is son of Bholanath, Stamp Vendor. Jagmohan was asked to bring the register in which entries are made vis-a-vis sale of stamp papers. He made a statement in Court that the register has since been deposited with the concerned authorities. Report was sought from the concerned authorities and the report is to the effect that the register has not been deposited and it is with Bholanath Stamp Vendor. It may be mentioned that Bholanath who is the Stamp Vendor and who was not present on the particular day when the stamps were sold, has stated that Jagmohan was authorised to sell the stamps on that day. When this information became available then a prayer was made to call Bholanath. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to summon Bholanath. It is against this order passed on 7th of May, 1997, petition bearing No. 796/97 has been preferred. 3. So far as petition No. 612/97 is concerned, the petitioner defendant had summoned Jagmohan s/o Bholanath. His evidence was initiated on 28th of April, 1997. It continued and this Jagmohan was examined on 1st of May, 1997. On this date, a prayer was made that Jagmohan who was summoned by the petitioner defendant be permitted to be cross-examined. This prayer has been declined. It is against the above order passed on 1st of May, 1997, Civil Revision No. 612 of 1997 has been preferred. 4. If the statement made by Jagmohan is perused then it becomes apparent that he has stated that the relevant register had been deposited with the concerned authority. A statement to this effect was made on 28-4-1997. The precise statement made by him is that his father had deposited the register with the registration authorities. The report from the registration authorities is that this register is still with Bholanath. A statement to this effect was made on 28-4-1997. The precise statement made by him is that his father had deposited the register with the registration authorities. The report from the registration authorities is that this register is still with Bholanath. If this be the position then the prayer made by petitioner Manoj cannot be said to be such which deserved to be rejected. Accordingly, the order passed on 7th of May, 1997 refusing prayer to summon Bholanath is set aside. The petitioner-defendant would take dasti process and would serve Bholanath. The summons would indicate that the concerned register for the relevant year is required for production. This disposes of C. R. No. 796/97. 5. So far as the question as to whether party's own witness can be subjected to cross-examination, the view definitely is that it is the discretion of the Court. There can be no dispute with that proposition. This Court in a case reported as Kiranchandra Pal v. Bhondu, 1968 JLJ S.N. 65 in a matter arising on the civil side, observed that for impeaching the credit of ones own witness, it may be possible for the witness to be declared hostile and the witness can be cross-examined. This Court placed reliance on Judah v. Isolyne Bose, AIR 1945 PC 174. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision reported as Kalusingh v. State., 1967 MPLJ 849 = 1965 JLJ 837 . This case was being dealt with by this Court exercising criminal jurisdiction. It was observed that the discretion exercised by the Court below in refusing permission should not be interfered with. 6. A perusal of the aforementioned authorities would indicate that it is possible to declare ones own witness as hostile and subject him cross-examination. To this general proposition there can be no dispute. In the present case, the defendant has been permitted to summon Bholanath, Stamp Vendor along with the register. Once Bholanath comes along with the register, then what was sought to be elicited from his son Jagmohan may come on the record. In that eventuality it may not be necessary to pursue further with the matter as to whether Jagmohan was required to be cross-examined or not. Therefore, this question is being left open. The Court below shall issue process for the service of Bholanath indicating that he has to bring the concerned register. In that eventuality it may not be necessary to pursue further with the matter as to whether Jagmohan was required to be cross-examined or not. Therefore, this question is being left open. The Court below shall issue process for the service of Bholanath indicating that he has to bring the concerned register. If the petitioner still feels it necessary to cross-examine the witness then it would be open for him to apply afresh and the trial Court would pass a fresh order in accordance with law. This Petition is disposed of accordingly.