THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1410 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the marking of a Xerox copy of the agreement of sale as Ex.A.1 by I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry in O.S.No.72 of 2006. The learned I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, while marking the document, safeguarded the interest of the petitioner/defendant as under: “The document is marked subject to objection and adjudication. Whether Ex.A.1 can be considered as a secondary evidence or not and the validity of it is one of the issues in the suit. So, no finding is given with regard to receiving of Ex.A.1 as a secondary evidence.” The Supreme Court in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT[1] held that whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence, the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable, the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting such a course. The Court however made it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed. In the present case, the necessary stamp duty and penalty have already been collected by the Court without adjudicating or finding that the document is receivable as secondary evidence or not. But, mere collection of the stamp duty and penalty will not dispense with the proof and admissibility of the document as secondary evidence. The same can be considered as an issue in the main suit. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to raise all the objections with regard to admissibility of the document as secondary evidence. It is open to the learned Judge to decide the same along with the main suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 28.04.2010 va [1] AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158