ANIL KUMAR Vs. HARNEK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, declining the request of the petitioner to declare R.W.9 -Dalwinder Kaur as hostile and to cross -examine the said witness. From the statement of R.W.9 recorded by the learned Rent Controller, it appears that this witness has withheld the truth from the Court. On a specific question asked about the existence of sale deed, this witness admits that the sale deed is in her possession. When she was asked to produce the sale deed, she has responded by saying that she do not know whether she can produce the said sale deed or not. She has further stated that she cannot produce the sale deed. This clearly indicate that this witness is suppressing the truth from the Court. Section 154 of the Evidence Act, permits the Court to declare a witness as hostile and permit the party tendering the witness to subject him/her to cross -examination. The conditions where a witness can be declared hostile by the Court are laid down in the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey v. : 1977CriLJ173 , which are as follows:

(2.) THE above noted statement of RW -9 is sufficient to draw an inference that she is with -holding the truth from the Court. There is apparent element of hostility towards the petitioner for one or the other reason. The learned Rent Controller has, however, observed that there is nothing to indicate that the witness is suppressing the truth. These observations are not consonance with the conduct and statement of witness. The statement noticed by me herein above is sufficient to formulate an opinion that the witness in question is with -holding the truth from the Court and should be declared hostile.