VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. This application has been filed by the defendant, inter alia, contending that the plaintiff be not allowed to exhibit the documents which are inadmissible in evidence such as the alleged security deposit agreement dated 16.09.1996 and the alleged Lease Deed dated 16.09.1996. This prayer is made on account of the fact that these documents were not registered at the relevant time. The other relief prayed for in the application is for dismissal of this suit on account of plaintiff’s failure to lead evidence by way of affidavit within the stipulated time. So far as the delay in filing the evidence by way of affidavit is concerned, the court had condoned the same and taken the evidence by way of affidavit on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- vide order dated 23.01.2009.

.2. Mr. Kathpalia, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the aforesaid two documents not being registered are inadmissible in evidence and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to tender the same in evidence. He submits that in case the plaintiff is so permitted even provisionally subject to final decision on the issue of their admissibility by the court, the defendant would be prejudiced as the cross-examination of the plaintiff founded upon these inadmissible documents, in any event, would be read in evidence.

3. In support of his submissions Mr. Kathpalia relies on Laijam Singh Vs. Emperor, AIR 1925 Allahabad 405 to submit that matters tendered in evidence by the prosecution affecting the case must be dealt with summarily and instantly by the Judge at the trial when they are tendered. He also relies on Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 1158 to submit that even when the Supreme Court held that the documents in respect of which an objection regarding admissibility is raised at the trial stage should, in any event, be tentatively be exhibited, the court made it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further.

.4. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff points out that the defendant had even earlier moved an application raising the same objection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by filing I.A. No. 8510/2000. The said application was disposed on 09.05.2007 by the court by observing :

.“The plea of the defendant is that certain documents relied upon by the plaintiff are inadmissible in evidence. If that be so, that would be a matter to be examined in trial and the consequence would be seen at the stage of final adjudication. The application stands disposed of.”

5. Mr. Srinivasan submits that the defendant cannot be permitted to obstruct the progress of the trial of the case by raising such objections and insisting upon their decision by the court, at this stage. The defendant should participate in and proceed with the trial, while raising his objections, and subject to his objections. The issue with regard to the admissibility of the aforesaid documents in terms of the earlier order of the court would be decided by the court at the stage of final adjudication.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and reject the prayer made in the present application, while reserving the defendant’s right to raise whatever objections the defendants have to the admissibility of the aforesaid documents at the stage of final hearing.

7. The Parliament has amended the Civil Procedure Code in the year 2002 and has introduced an amended Rule 4 in Order XVIII CPC. This amendment, apart from various other amendments, were brought about to expedite the progress and disposal of civil proceedings to which the C.P.C applies. The amended rule permits the examination-in-chief of the witness to be filed on affidavit. Rule 4 (1) specifically states that where documents are filed and parties rely upon the