Objections to the admissibility of a document should be decided at the time they are raised, rather than deferring the decision to the final judgment.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for the following prayers:

“8(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside impugned order dated 26th June, 2019 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jasdan below Exh.62 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.155 of 2017 to an extent of not giving permanent exhibit to the said document and further may be pleased to allow the application Exh.62;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the trial of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.155 of 2017 pending before learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jasdan;

(C) xxxx”

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition, as stated in the petition, are such that the petitioner got married with respondent no.2; that the petitioner was deserted by respondent no.2 and at present petitioner is residing at her parental home; the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance; that the respondent no.2 appeared in the mater and filed his written statement/objection to the said application for maintenance vide Exh.9; that the petitioner submitted her examination-in-chief and she was cross-examined; the respondent no.2 did not step into the witness box and has filed pursis vide Exh.51, whereby it was declared that he does not want to give any evidence in the matter; the petitioner examined certain witnesses in support of her case and filed certain applications for production of documents etc., which came to be allowed; the petitioner filed application vide Exh.54 to produce documentary evidence before the court below whereby the petitioner has sought permission to produce divorce deed executed by respondent no.2 with one Devkuben Jayveerbhai Vala, which was executed on 18.7.2016 as it had come to light that during the subsistence of marriage of the respondent no.2 with the petitioner, the respondent no.2 got married with other lady and subsequently got divorce with that lady; the said divorce deed was duly notarized before the notary and therefore, the petitioner has applied vide Exh.56 for production and examination of the notary, which application was duly allowed by the court below; the said notary viz. Harjivanbhai M Vadodariya came to be examined vide Exh.59 and he produced documents Exhs.60 and 61; that thereafter the petitioner filed application Exh.62 inter alia requesting the court below to give exhibit to the said document and by the impugned order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jasdan has given tentative exhibit by observing that the same is exhibited subject to proof and hence this petition is filed as the Court has not adjudicated the issue whether this document can be exhibited or not and has, deferred the issue of proof of the said document, which is impermissible.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Purohit for the applicant, learned APP for respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.Jasani for the respondent no.2.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit for the applicant has assailed the impugned order by submitting that the trial court was not justified in giving the tentative exhibit instead of admitting the document in evidence though the document in question is a certified copy of public record and the witness has proved the same before the court, therefore, there was no reason to give it a tentative exhibit merely because an objection had been raised against admitting the same.

5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Privy Council in Jadurai v. Bhubotaran Nandy, 16 Indian Appeals 148, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V