1. This Civil Revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved of the order, dated 05.03.2018, passed in I.A.no.1637 of 2017 in O.S.no.61 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Court, Markapur, Prakasam District.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri B.S.Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff; and of Sri Venkateswarlu Varanasi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants. I have perused the material record.

3. The introductory facts are as under:

The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants/respondents herein for partition, mesne profits and costs. During the course of evidence of DW1, a certified copy of unregistered partition deed, dated 17.02.2007, which was filed along with the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the said witness, was tendered for being marked and was marked as exhibit B1. However, cross-examination of the said witness by the learned counsel for the plaintiff was deferred at request. Later, the plaintiff filed the instant application for de-exhibiting the said document marked as exhibit B1. The said petition was resisted by the 1st defendant/DW1 by filing a counter. By a docket order, which is impugned in this revision, the trial Court dismissed the petition of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff and the submissions made on his behalf, in brief, are as follows: The 1st defendant filed an application to receive on file the certified copy of the unregistered partition deed, dated 17.02.2007, (CC of unregistered partition deed). Notice on that application is served upon the counsel for the plaintiff. He made an endorsement requesting time for filing counter. Counsel for the 1st defendant suggested that objection regarding admissibility of the CC of unregistered partition deed can be raised at the time of its admission into evidence. Counsel for the plaintiff, then, endorsed No objection for allowing the application, but, not to admit the document. Thinking that the matter will be adjourned to some other day for marking of the document, counsel for the plaintiff left the Court Hall. Unfortunately, in the absence of the counsel for the plaintiff, the matter was taken up and CC of the unregistered partition deed was marked as exhibit B1; and, the matter was adjourned for cross-examination of DW1. Thus, there was no opportunity for the plaintiff for objecting to the marking of the said document at the time when it was exhibited. The marking given does not amount to admission in evidence. The plaintiff has a right to question the admissibility of the said document at any stage of the suit, in view of the decision of this Court in G.Sudhakara Reddy v. M.Pullaiah [reported in 2015(3) ALT 575]; and, a decision of the Supreme Court in RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswara Swamy [2006(3) ALT 66]. Further, Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (Code for short), which deals with rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents says that the Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document, which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, after recording the grounds of such rejection. In the decision in Srinivasa Builders, Hyderabad v. A.Janga Reddy [2016(2) ALT 321], this Court held that it is the duty of the Court of Law to exclude all irrelevant or inadmissible evidence even if no objection is taken by the opposite side. The same view was also expressed by this Court in the decision in Syed Yousuf Ali v. Mohd. Yousuf [2016 (3) ALD 235]; and, in the decision in A.P.Laly v. Gurram Rama Rao [2017 (6) ALD 300]. In the above decision, this Court reviewed the entire case law on the point and held that the Court has power to reject a document at any time. Therefore, inspite of prohibition contained in Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, the trial Court has power to exclude exhibit B1 from the evidence as the ori