SIVHAMURTHY SWAMY Vs. AGODI SONGANNO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Further examination of this witness was stopped after recording the last answer just before the Court rose for lunch. When the Court reassembled after lunch, Mr. B. S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought my permission under Section 194 of the Evidence Act to put to this witness questions which may be put to him in cross-examination by the adverse party. This request was opposed (page 246) by Mr. Venugopalachari, learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that in the circumstances of this case, no such permission could properly be granted at all or that at this stage of the examination of the witness, the petitioner may not be said to have laid the foundation necessary for seeking permission to cross-examine under section 154 of the Evidence Act.

(2.) As both the counsel sought some time for addressing full arguments on this question with the assistance of citations, the examination of this witness was postponed and the next witness P.W. 19, put into the box. After completing the examination of P.W. 19 yesterday, arguments were commenced. They concluded today.

(3.) Although many cases have been cited by Counsel on both sides, there is not much doubt or obscurity about the principles governing the Court's discretion whether or not to grant the permission under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. Most of the cases have been cited only by way of illustration of the particular and respective positions taken up by the counsel or merely as examples of the application of the well established principles to the facts and circumstances of particular cases. It will not therefore, be necessary for me to refer in detail to everyone of the cases cited.