THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4795 OF 2007 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against marking of Exs.A.1 to A.8 during the course of the chief examination of P.W.1 on 11.10.2007. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused the record. 3 The Respondents filed the suit against the Petitioner for declaration that the cancellation deed dated 15.05.2004 as null and void and also for a permanent injunction. The Petitioner – defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues the trial has commenced. During the chief examination of P.W.1 certain documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8. The learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant has taken objection for marking of those documents on the ground that they are only photo copies and not certified copies. The Petitioner also objected for marking of some of those documents on the ground that they are based on the certificate of genuineness alleged to have been issued by a court at United States under Ex.A.6. The trial court noted the objections taken by the Petitioner–defendant, but, however, permitted marking of the said documents subject to objection. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the defendant. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ex.A.1 to A.4 are public documents and certified copies thereof can be obtained from the concerned office of the Sub Registrar and hence photo copies of the said documents cannot be marked. She would further contend that Exs.A.5, A.7 and A.8 are said to have been issued by a Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of Illionois, United States along with a certificate of genuineness Ex.A.6, but the genuineness of Ex.A.6 itself is questioned and hence the said documents also cannot be marked. She would further contend that when once an objection has been taken for marking of certain documents, the trial court has to consider the said objection before marking the documents and cannot relegate the same to a future date by marking the documents subject to objection. 5 The learned counsel for the Respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, would submit that insofar as Ex.A.1 to A.4 are concerned, certified copies of the said documents may be permitted to be filed. Regarding Exs.A.5, A.7 and A.8, he would contend that they are admissible in view of the certificate of genuineness issued by a competent court in United States under Ex.A.6. 6 The trial court has not considered the objections raised by the Petitioner /defendant on merits, but, however, proceeded to mark the documents subject to objection. The trial court has also not passed any speaking order as to whether or not the objection raised by the Petitioner for marking the documents is valid and tenable. As the documents are sought to be marked as exhibits in the evidence of P.W.1 and when once an objection is taken for their marking, the trial court has to necessarily consider the validity or otherwise of the said objection before proceeding further. The documents can be marked when the objection is overruled and question of marking the documents does not arise if the objection is sustained. As the trial court has not passed any speaking order on merits, regarding the admissibility or otherwise of the documents, it is considered imprudent to go into merits of the matter regarding the merits of the objection at this stage in this CRP. 7 In the circumstances, the trial court is directed to consider the objections raised by the Petitioner / defendant on its merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law regarding the admissibility or otherwise of the documents. The Respondents/plaintiffs are at liberty to file certified copies of the documents before the trial court if they so desire and the trial court would receive them if admissible in evidence. 8 The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ----------------------------- G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. 21.06.2011 Kvsn