<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1967 (9) TMI 146 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175006</link>
    <description>Permission to cross-examine a party&#039;s own witness under the Evidence Act depends on a judicial assessment that the witness is hostile, unwilling to speak truthfully, or marked by animus; mere adverse answers are not enough. Where the calling party had no real expectation of support and only took a chance on favourable testimony, surprise alone does not justify invoking that power. The court may instead permit limited leading questions on material points and, where necessary, intervene to elicit the truth through its own questioning. General permission under the hostile-witness provision was refused, while limited leave on specific topics was left open and further examination was directed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 17:08:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (9) TMI 146 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175006</link>
      <description>Permission to cross-examine a party&#039;s own witness under the Evidence Act depends on a judicial assessment that the witness is hostile, unwilling to speak truthfully, or marked by animus; mere adverse answers are not enough. Where the calling party had no real expectation of support and only took a chance on favourable testimony, surprise alone does not justify invoking that power. The court may instead permit limited leading questions on material points and, where necessary, intervene to elicit the truth through its own questioning. General permission under the hostile-witness provision was refused, while limited leave on specific topics was left open and further examination was directed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>