THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4703 of 2007 15.10.2009 Between: Ghantasala Peddintlamma, W/o.Late Ramulu … Petitioner and Ghantasala Venkata Raju And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4703 of 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed by fifth defendant in O.S.No.20 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, against the order dated 21.8.2007 in the said suit with regard to admissibility of certified copy of Ex.A2 marked in the earlier suit. One Ghantasala Ramulu filed O.S.No.860 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, for injunction. After his death, petitioner and third respondent herein are joined as plaintiffs. Respondents 1, 5 and 6 filed O.S.No.82 of 2003 for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit schedule property in both the suits is a fish tank admeasuring Acs.8.00. Therefore, O.S.No.860 of 2008 was subsequently transferred to be tried along with O.S.No.20 of 2002. It was renumbered as O.S.No.82 of 2003 (injunction suit) in which plaintiffs marked Ex.A2, which is an undertaking (Hami Patram – in Telugu). When the joint trial was being conducted, respondents herein sought to mark certified copy of Ex.A2. Petitioner raised objection on the ground that it requires stamp duty and that it is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The trial Court overruled the objection and held that document dated 15.3.1990 is admissible in evidence. The order of trial Court dated 21.8.2007 is subject matter of this civil revision petition. This Court ordered notice to respondents. After service of notice, they entered appearance through a Counsel. The matter is heard and both the Counsel made their submissions. Reliance is also placed on Javer Chand v Pukhraj Surana[1], Hari Om Agrawal v Prakash Chand Malaviya[2] and Lakkaraju Radha Krishna v Pyarle Sri Rama Sarma[3]. Insofar as objection of petitioner that for want of stamp duty, first contention of learned Counsel for petitioner is that undertaking cannot be received as evidence. The objection is unsustainable. Respondents admittedly sought to mark certified copy of Ex.A2 in O.S.No.82 of 2003. Therefore, the bar created by Section 36 of Stamp Act, 1899, has no application. In Hari Om Agrawal (supra), Supreme Court considered the question whether Xerox copy of the instrument bearing stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description could be impounded by the Court exercising powers under the Stamp Act. The apex Court laid down as follows. It is clear from the decisions of this Court and a plain reading of Sections 33, 35 and 2(14) of the Act that an instrument which is not duly stamped can be impounded and when the required fee and penalty has been paid for such instrument it can be taken in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Sections 33 or 35 are not concerned with any copy of the instrument and party can only be allowed to rely on the document which is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14). There is no scope for the inclusion of the copy of the document for the purposes of the Stamp Act. Law is now no doubt well settled that copy of the instrument cannot be validated by impounding and this cannot be admitted as secondary evidence under the Stamp Act, 1899. The second contention urged by the petitioner’s Counsel is with regard to admissibility of the document. It is no doubt true that trial Court considering the contents of the undertaking/Hami Patram dated 15.3.1990, came to the conclusion that the document is admissible. It is now well settled that when objection is raised by any of the parties during the trial regarding admissibility of document such question should be kept open and document should be marked reserving liberty to argue such question at the time of final hearing. In Bipin Shantilal v State of Gujarat[4], Supreme Court held that if objection is raised regarding stamp duty, question has to be decided before proceeding further presumably having regard to Section 36 of Stamp Act. But in other cases, trial Court can mark all documents recording objections regarding admissibility and allow parties to make submissions at the time of hearing. The following observations in this regard are apposite. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence- collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: 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 (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) 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. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make 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.) (emphasis supplied) In view of the settled principles of law, this civil revision petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner and respondents to raise objections regarding admissibility of the document i.e., undertaking/Hami Patram dated 15.3.1990 at the time of final hearing of the suits. As the suits are pending fore more than half a decade, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge may dispose of them as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) October 15, 2009 YS [1] AIR 1961 SC 1655 [2] (2007) 8 SCC 514 [3] 2007(1) ALD 67 [4] (2001) 3 SCC 1 = AIR 2001 SC 1158