THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4349 of 2008 06.10.2009 Between: Rudraraju Rama Krishnam Raju and another … Petitioners and M/s.Universal Finance, Bhimavaram, represented by its Managing Partner, Rudraraju Rama Krishna Raju … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4349 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.101 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,53,240/- financed by first respondent/plaintiff to defendants, partners of second respondent, paid to them for production of cinematography films ‘Darja Donga’ and ‘Bhayam Bhayam’. Negative rights of two films were pledged to plaintiffs. As the amount was not paid, suit was filed. During trial of the suit, at the stage of further chief examination of P.W.1, two documents were sought to be marked. Defendants raised objection that that document dated 17.2.1995 is a sale deed and that document dated 01.3.1995 whereunder World satellite rights were given to Vemuru Damodara Rao, cannot be treated as an agreement. The trial Court considered these two documents and came to conclusion that defendants raised such objection to create hurdle and delay disposal of suit and that as the Court impounded by levying stamp duty and penalty, they are deemed to be executed on sufficiently stamped papers. Aggrieved by the order of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, in I.A.No.2969 of 2007, which was filed by petitioners herein, present civil revision petition is filed. Learned Counsel for petitioners contends that defendants filed interlocutory application praying trial Court to ascertain nature of two document and decide admissibility of documents but learned trial Judge erred in dismissing application only on the ground that necessary stamp duty and penalty are collected by the Court. Though notice is served on first respondent/plaintiff, which is necessary party herein, none appears for first respondent. When a party to suit produces documentary evidence, unless law prohibits the Court from accepting, such document ordinarily should be marked, however, giving liberty to parties to raise all objections at the time of final hearing of the suit. If at every stage, trial Court has to consider objections of parties for marking a document, unless its admissibility is prohibited by law like in the case of Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act 1899, it would delay proceedings, and therefore, the Courts are precluded from going into question of admissibility at the time of marking. This legal position is well settled. In Bipin Shantilal v State of Gujarat[1], 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) An examination of the present case, keeping in view the principles above, would show that though trial Court considered in some detail nature of documents, they are not intended to prevent petitioners from raising objections at later stage. When petitioners prayed trial Court to decide nature and admissibility of documents, it was certainly necessary for the Court to consider on prima facie basis. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, as the suit pertains to 1992. However, liberty is given to defendants to raise objections at the time of final hearing of suit and trial Court is bound to consider such objections. The civil revision petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) October , 2009 YS [1] (2001) 3 SCC 1 = AIR 2001 SC 1158