The relevancy and admissibility of documents should be adjudicated at the final stage of trials to enhance judicial efficiency and avoid unnecessary delays.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present revision is filed against the order dated 25.07.2016 in IA No.205 of 2016 in OS No.203 of 2014 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the suit was filed for recovery of money. In the course of trial, the plaintiff filed IA No.205 of 2016 to receive the documents under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. This application was opposed by the petitioner and the Trial Court after hearing the contentions of respective parties, allowed the I.A., on payment of costs of Rs.500/- by the plaintiff, out of which, a sum of Rs.300/- is payable to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Gudur and Rs.200/- to the other side. Hence, the revision petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri T. Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.S.R. Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondent.

4. The primary objection for marking the documents is that they are not relevant for the purpose of the case as the previous conduct of the parties is immaterial in civil cases.

5. This Court, after hearing both sides, is of the opinion that the relevancy and admissibility of the documents other than those that are insufficiently stamped should be decided by the Trial Court at the final stage rather than at interlocutory stage. This was the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal v. State of Gujarat , (2001) 3 SCC 1 and the Paragraphs 12 to 16 are extracted below for ready reference.

"12. As pointed out earlier, on different occasions the Trial Judge has chosen to decide questions of admissibility of documents or other items of evidence, as and when objections thereto were raised and then detailed orders were passed either upholding or overruling such objections. The worse part is that after passing the orders the Trial Court waited for days and weeks for the concerned parties to go before the Higher Courts for the purpose of challenging such interlocutory orders.

13. 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 fall out 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 Revisional Court, when the same question is re-canvassed, 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 re-moulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.

14. 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 suc