1. The revision involves the questions as to whether a copy of an unstamped document can be called as instrument under Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act and if not is it not an inadmissible document for not to exhibit, unless original is produced to cause impound and that too when the original document is undisputedly available in another proceeding that was marked with no objection for stamp duty therein for collateral purpose, (apart from what is meant by collateral purpose under Section 49 of the Registration Act from its wording), from not a registered lease deed, still is it not a bar to exhibit in the present proceedings in view of the specific wording of Section 35 of the Stamp Act confining to same proceedings of waiver of objection by not extending to any other proceeding even between same parties and any earlier expression by not considering properly said provision is still a binding precedent and if not it still requires any reference to a Division Bench in this regard.

2. The revision is filed impugning the docket order passed by the lower Court in the suit pending trial during course of PW1’s evidence on dated 19.12.2014, refusing permission to exhibit as seconda