1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 114 OF 2006 Vasudeo Shivram Raikar, Caranzalem Goa. ... Petitioner versus V. G. Quenim and others. ... Respondents Mr. R. V. Kamat, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2006. P.C.:­ Heard Mr. R. V. Kamat, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is a witness cited by respondent no.1 who is the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.1/2003/A. The petitioner was listed as a witness, on the list of witnesses filed by the said plaintiff on 18­1­2005. It appears that the petitioner has also a Civil Suit filed by him against the said plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) and there is also a Civil Suit filed by the said plaintiff against the petitioner. The petitioner was 2 summoned as a witness before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Bicholim but subsequently at the request of the petitioner a Commission came to be appointed. The petitioner wanted the assistance of an Advocate to assist him to depose as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff because according to the petitioner on a prior occasion he was hackled and harassed by the plaintiff's Advocate. The assistance of an Advocate has not been provided to the petitioner by Order dated 16­1­2006 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. It appears that the petitioner sought adjournment before the Commission twice and thereafter as the petitioner did not remain present the Commission was returned without recording the evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division to dispense him being examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.1/2030/A, which application came to be rejected by Order dated 13­2­2006. Mr. Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to point out to any provision of law by which a witness would be entitled to an Advocate 3 being appointed for him. In fact, it appears that the petitioner is a double graduate having passed a LL.B. Degree as well. In my view, there is no provision in law which could entitle a witness to have an Advocate to assist him. After all, it is the duty of the witness only to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. In case, there has been unnecessary hackling or harassment on the part of the Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff as alleged, the petitioner as a witness is certainly entitled to bring the same to the notice of the Court and to that extent the Court would be required to give necessary protection to the witness but nothing beyond that. Witnesses require protection in and out of Court. In the Court from being unnecessarily browbeaten. Sections 149 to 151 of the Evidence Act, 1872 confer sufficient powers on the Court in that regard. The petitioner having been cited as a witness by the plaintiff, it is his duty but to depose the truth as he knows concerning the case. In my view, no fault can be found with the Orders dated 16­1­2006 and 13­2­2006 so as to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD 4