JUDGMENT - VAZIFDAR S.J., J.:-The witness has deposed that the conversation recorded in the cassette took place in his presence. He has identified the voices on the cassette. He has also deposed about the making of the transcript and the translations thereof. Mr. Sampat has objected to the admissibility of the cassette the transcripts and the translations thereof on various grounds, including those stated in his note.

2. Evidence in this matter commenced on 28-11-2001 before Smt. K.K. Baam, J. (As Her Ladyship then was). The recording of evidence was not complete. It continued before J.A. Patil, J., initially on 26-2-2003. It continued on two days thereafter. The last date on which the evidence was recorded was 31-3-2001. The matter, after the change in assignments is now before me.

3. It is not necessary to rule on the admissibility of this evidence at this stage. Considering the nature of the evidence and the objection taken thereto, this is a fit case for exercising my discretion and admitting the same provisionally and subject to the right of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 to pursue their objections at the final stage of the hearing of this proceeding. Further the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 shall be entitled to cross-examine the witness in respect of this evidence without prejudice to their right to pursue their objections. It is clarified that it will not be open to defendant No. 1 to contend that by virtue of having cross-examined the witness on this evidence, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are barred from raising their objections.

4. I have adopted this course in view of the nature of the evidence, the objections thereto and based on the two recent judgments of the Supreme Court. In (Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat another)1, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1158, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held as under :

12. "It is an aronaic 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 impeoesteady 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."

13. "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 such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court had to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections

Click Here to Read the rest of this document