THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.5398 of 2009 Date of Order: 01-04-2011 Between: Konakalla Yogeswara Rao ..Petitioner And 1. Jannu Sitharamaiah (died) and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.5398 of 2009 ORAL Order: Petitioner/plaintiff No.1 filed this revision against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda dated 12-08-2009 in allowing I.A.No.406 of 2009 in O.S.No.62 of 2003 filed to de-exhibit Ex.A1 on which basis suit for specific performance has been instituted. Defendants filed the above I.A. contending that possession was delivered on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and consideration amount was also paid. Hence, it requires stamp duty and penalty. The trial court marked the same without any objection. Therefore, it should be de-exhibited. The lower court by the impugned order allowed the I.A. Hence, the revision. The Supreme Court in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT[1] held 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. However, it was made clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. Since the document is already marked, it cannot be de- exhibited, but the lower court can decide the admissibility of the said document along with the suit. With the above direction the revision is disposed of. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 01-04-2010 Murthy [1] (2001) 3 SCC 1= AIR 2001SC 1158