Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajiv Vijaysarathy Rathnam, is the plaintiff in a money suit (O.S.No.1305/2013) pending before the XLI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The defendant, Sudha Seetharam, is his mother-in-law. During trial, the defendant examined DWs 3 and 4 as her witnesses. However, they did not support her case, leading the defendant to file an application under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to declare them hostile and permit cross-examination. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 15.03.2019. The plaintiff challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the trial court's discretion under Section 154 is wide and not limited to witnesses called by the opposite party. The order was within the court's jurisdiction and did not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Hostile Witness - Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court has discretion to permit a party to cross-examine its own witness if the witness appears hostile. The order treating DWs 3 and 4 as hostile and permitting cross-examination by the defendant was upheld as within the trial court's discretion. (Paras 1-5)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The plaintiff, being a party to the suit, has locus to challenge an order affecting the conduct of trial, even if the order permits cross-examination by the defendant. The petition was maintainable. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in treating DWs 3 and 4 as hostile witnesses and permitting the defendant to cross-examine them, and whether the plaintiff has locus standi to challenge such order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 15.03.2019. The court held that the trial court's discretion under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is wide and not limited to witnesses called by the opposite party. The order was within the court's jurisdiction and did not warrant interference under Article 227.
Law Points
- Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- hostile witness
- cross-examination by party calling witness
- discretion of court
- witness turning hostile
- permission to cross-examine
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (10) 28
Writ Petition No.14032 of 2019 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Counsel for Sri. Abhilesh J, Advocate (for petitioner); Sri. Abhinav R, Advocate (for respondent)
Rajiv Vijaysarathy Rathnam
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the trial court in a money suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 15.03.2019 treating DWs 3 and 4 as hostile and permitting the defendant to cross-examine them.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, being the plaintiff in the suit, was aggrieved by the trial court's order allowing the defendant to cross-examine her own witnesses after declaring them hostile.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (XLI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru) passed the impugned order on 15.03.2019 in O.S.No.1305/2013.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order treating DWs 3 and 4 as hostile and permitting cross-examination by the defendant is legally sustainable?
Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to challenge such an order?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in permitting the defendant to cross-examine her own witnesses, as Section 154 of the Evidence Act applies only to witnesses called by the opposite party.
Respondent contended that the trial court has discretion under Section 154 to permit cross-examination of any witness who appears hostile, and the order was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, empowers the court to permit a party to cross-examine its own witness if the witness appears hostile. This discretion is not confined to witnesses called by the opposite party. The trial court's order was a valid exercise of discretion and did not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner being the plaintiff in a bitterly fought money suit in O.S.No.1305/2013 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 15.03.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-H, whereby the learned XLI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having treated the witnesses i.e., DWs 3 & 4 as ‘hostile’ has permitted their cross-examination by the defendant who had called them as her own witnesses.
The court has discretion to permit a party to cross-examine its own witness if the witness appears hostile.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a money suit (O.S.No.1305/2013) before the XLI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. During trial, the defendant examined DWs 3 and 4. The defendant filed an application under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to declare them hostile and permit cross-examination. The trial court allowed the application on 15.03.2019. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 16.10.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 154
- Constitution of India: Article 227
