THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5275 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner/defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Vijayawada, allowing I.A.No.358 of 2009 in O.S.No.388 of 2008 rejecting the documents i.e., Exs.B.1 and B.4 holding that they are inadmissible. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the above Interlocutory Application stating that after completion of their evidence, the defendant–petitioner herein filed his affidavit in lieu of examination–in- chief as D.W.1 and marked the documents Exs.B.1 and B.4; that since the said documents are not registered before the competent authorities, they cannot be admissible in evidence and therefore, prayed to reject them as inadmissible. The petitioner/defendant contested the said Interlocutory Application by filing a counter-affidavit stating that the said documents were filed along with I.A.No.185 of 2009 and as per the order passed in the said I.A the said documents were marked as Exs.B.1 and B.4, and therefore, the same cannot be rejected. Admittedly, Ex.B.1 is an agreement of partition, whereby the first plaintiff relinquished his right stating that he will not claim any share in the properties in future and the same contemplates registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Similarly, Ex.B.4 is the calculation slip prepared by the first plaintiff showing outstanding amount of Rs.1,15,000/-, and the same requires payment of necessary stamp duty. The lower Court found favour with the contention advanced by the respondents/plaintiffs and allowed the Interlocutory Application . Hence, this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswasaraswami & V.P. Temple[1], contends that once the documents are marked, the same cannot be rejected except when questioned in appeal, and therefore, the lower Court erred in allowing the I.A. The said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not find any merit for the simple reason that the documents were not tendered during the examination of the petitioner in the Court. In view of the amendment carried out to the C.P.C, the parties are now permitted to file an affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief along with necessary documents. Since the petitioner referred the documents as Exs.B.1 and B.4 in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief, there is no occasion for the respondents/plaintiffs to reject the same except by way of filing the present Interlocutory Application. It is well settled that any document, which is tendered in evidence can be received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, and can be decided along with the main suit. Admittedly, the documents in question were filed along with the chief-affidavit of the petitioner/defendant. When an objection was raised as to the marking of those documents, they can only be received by the trial Court instead of marking the same. But, however, the question as to whether they can be admitted in evidence or not can be decided by the trail Court while adjudicating the suit after the parties let in their evidence. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 09.12.2011 va [1] (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 752