Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. Can a party to a civil suit request the court for permission to cross-examine the witness cited by himself? This is the question posed for decision in this case. 2. In answer to the suit for money in respect of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- brought by the respondent herein, the defendant (revision petitioner herein) set up a counterclaim for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. It was alleged that the defendant's title deeds were given to the plaintiff; that he borrowed Rs. 25,000/- from one Vinod by pledging the document to him; that ultimately the defendant had to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/-to Vinod and that in the circumstances, the plaintiff was liable to pay the defendant the said amount of Rs. 25,000/-. In order to prove the contention, the defendant cited the said Vinod as a witness. Vinod, however, did not support the defence case when examined in court. A motion was subsequently made for re-opening evidence and to recall Vinod for subjecting him to cross-examination. As per the impugned order the trial court dismissed both the applications. It is aggrieved by this common order that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Sri. A. Mohamed Mustaque, who argued the case of the revision petitioner, submitted that the trial court has proceeded on wrong premises in so far as the reason given in the impugned order for denying the request of the petitioner is that there is no previous statement available before court based on which a cross-examination could be permitted. According to the counsel, whether there is a previous statement or not and whether the case involves application of criminal law or civil law, the provisions of S.154 of the Indian Evidence Act would be applicable and the defendant, in the circumstances was fully justified in making the motion in question. 4. In order to appreciate the questions involved, it is necessary to make a brief survey of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and the Scheme of examination of witnesses contemplated therein. 5. S.134 of the Evidence Act provides that the examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief and that the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. 5. S.134 of the Evidence Act provides that the examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief and that the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. S.139 provides that a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness. The aforesaid provision indirectly indicates that it is possible to cross-examine even a witness summoned by a party to produce a document provided he is summoned as a regular witness. Under S.141, any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question. Under S.142, leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. The said provision would indicate that if the Court permits, it is open to put even leading questions to a witness in examination-in-chief. S.143 provides that leading questions may be asked in cross examination. 6. S.154 of the Evidence Act which is the main provision that comes up for interpretation here provides as follows: "154. Question by party to his own witness- The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party". It may be clarified here that the provisions aforementioned are not merely confined to application before Criminal Courts; but are equally applicable to the civil courts as well. -No doubt, in civil cases previous statements as available in criminal cases may not be existing. That, however, is no reason to disallow a party from cross-examining his witness invoking power under S.154. It may also not be correct to say that a witness can be cross-examined only after declaring him as hostile. The expression 'hostile witness' has no statutory origin; it is actually forwarded from English law. The-grant of permission for cross-examining a witness which will include putting leading questions to the witness is a matter of discretion of the Court. That discretion is a judicial discretion which might be liberally exercised, though it cannot be done in a casual or routine manner. 7. The-grant of permission for cross-examining a witness which will include putting leading questions to the witness is a matter of discretion of the Court. That discretion is a judicial discretion which might be liberally exercised, though it cannot be done in a casual or routine manner. 7. The effect of allowing cross-examination is not to wipe off the effect of the version given in chief examination. The purpose is to test the veracity of the witness and the discretion has to be exercised with care and circumspection. The purpose of such cross-examination need not necessarily be to convince the Court that the credit of the witness has been shaken and it is for the Court to consider his evidence as whole with sufficient caution and then decide whether to accept his version at all and if so, which part of it. 8. This, however, does not mean that whenever a request is made for permitting cross-examination of a witness by the party who summoned him, the court should, as a matter of course, allow such request or that this should be extended to the examination of all witnesses wherever the party feels that the witness is not giving the answers that would best suit the party who summoned the witness. All the same if the court is satisfied that the witness summoned is not prepared to go by the oath that he has taken, i.e., to state the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and expresses a hostile attitude, there will be nothing that prevents the court from granting the required permission. 9. The question whether the right of a party to cross-examine his own witness can be exercised only after declaring the witness as 'hostile' came up for consideration of this Court in the case reported in 1989 (1) KLT Short Notes 43 at page 25. It was held that there is no such requirement and that it would be unsafe to lay down as a principle of law that the party who calls a witness would be bound by everything that the witness speaks in court even if the court is satisfied that the witness has spoken falsehood. The purpose of cross-examination is to elicit admissions of facts which would help build the case of the cross-examiner. The purpose of cross-examination is to elicit admissions of facts which would help build the case of the cross-examiner. When the party who calls the witness chooses to cross-examine him with the permission of the court, it would be illogical to predicate that the party is bound by every answer which such witness gives. The very fact that the party seeks permission of the Court to cross-examine a witness, it was held, was indicative of his stand that the witness was not speaking the truth or at least the whole truth according to the party who called him. 10. The law does not expect that a party should bring his witness after tutoring. It is not even expected that he should first seek the permission of the witness before citing him or discuss with him the purpose for which he is summoned. In fact, it is the summons issued from the court that makes the witness duty bound to appear before Court. He can come before court with open mind and even totally oblivious of the purpose of his examination in the case concerned. After taking oath he is bound to give true and correct answers to the questions put to him. It is only when the party who summons the witness finds that the witness is not giving a true version that the need for cross-examination would arise. Once that contingency arises, it is for him to make a request to the Court for necessary permission as contemplated under S.154 of the Evidence Act and if the permission is given the party certainly gets the right to put questions to the witness as allowable in cross-examination albeit the witness was brought at his own instance. 11. All that is required on the part of the court in such cases, is to endorse, at the relevant portion of the deposition of the witness, within brackets, the fact that the counsel for the witness sought for permission to cross-examine the witness at that stage and that the permission was granted. Further portion of the deposition may be recorded under the heading 'cross-examination'. Further portion of the deposition may be recorded under the heading 'cross-examination'. If however, the court, on a consideration of the relevant aspects, deems it fit to deny the permission sought for under S.154; it would be expected to record, briefly, reasons for such decision (also in the deposition within brackets ) and to proceed with the recording of further deposition, if any. 12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasons which prompted the learned Munsiff to reject the request, for recalling the witness for facing cross-examination were firstly that in civil cases the advantage of having pre-recorded statements from the witness is not there; that the party has absolute freedom to examine only such witness as would support his case whole-heartedly, and as he is not expected to bring in any witness who might not speak in his favour and that there is no provision of law which enables the court to allow a party to cross-examine his own witness unless the witness is bound by the contents of a document or a pre-recorded statement as available under S.161 of the Cr. P.C. For reasons already given in the earlier paras herein, the aforesaid findings were all incorrect and the impugned order rejecting the request for recalling the witness has therefore to be set aside. 13. The prayer in I.A. No. 3122/2000 is to reopen evidence in order to facilitate the recalling of the witness as sought for in LA. No. 3124/2000. It follows that the reopening of evidence would be required only in case the Court allows LA. No. 31247 2000. As far as that application is concerned, as already mentioned, the court has judicial discretion which has to be exercised taking into account the nature of the evidence given by DW.2 as also the nature of the pleadings raised in the case. In order to enable the trial court to apply its mind from the correct perspective as made clear in this order, LA. No. 3122 & 3124/2000 are both restored and remitted to the trial court. The petitions will be disposed of after hearing both sides; in accordance with law and through speaking orders.