1. The revision petition is directed against the petition for rejection of documents which had been tendered in evidence at the time of trial by the defendants. The documents are photocopies of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the first defendant who is dead and a mortgage receipt . The objection raised by the plaintiff/respondent before the court below was that the originals are not with the plaintiff as falsely alleged and the photocopies could not have been received in evidence. The Court below accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the petition for rejecting this documents.

2. The relevance of the documents which were sought to be introduced in evidence could be examined by the reference to the contentions raised between the parties. The suit is for specific performance which is resisted by the defendant by stating that it is a fabricated document. The contention of the defendants is to the effect that the first defendant and her sons had borrowed some money from the plaintiffs deceased father on the basis of promissory note. Towards the interest payable on the promissory note, the property belonging to the defendants were handed over possession to the plaintiffs father and in evidence of the same, a mortgage receipt was obtained. The document was unregistered. The plaintiffs father had also obtained the thumb impression of the deceased first defendant and on some occasion when the defendants were making demands for return of the property, the document had been pressed into service by fabricating an agreement in their favour.

.3. The defendants themselves had filed an independent suit for recovery of possession of the property by offering to repay the amount borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiffs father. The said suit is also pending. Both the suits were sought to be taken for joint trial. The plaintiff had examined himself and during the course of trial, the defendants filed proof affidavit and sought to mark two documents (i) promissory note and (ii) a mortgage receipt. It appears that the plaintiff had caused objection to the photocopies of documents , but the documents were marked before the Court below. The certified copy of documents are produced before me and I do not see any endorsement that any objection had been made at the time of marking the documents themselves. Only after marking the documents in evidence, the plaintiffs had filed the application for rejection of the documents under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC. The contention of the petitioner is that the Court below failed to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in 2001(3) SCC 1 where the Supreme Court had laid down directives as to the procedure to be followed at the time when a document is sought to be produced in evidence and when one of the parties was objecting to the reception of the documents. The particular point of relevance is that whenever the trial is sought to be stalled objection regarding the document, the best procedure would be to admit the document subject to objection and direct the parties to address arguments on the admissibility or otherwise of the document at the time of arguments. The only exception given to such a procedure is set out in paragraph 14 where the Supreme Court observed that if there was deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. The point to be noted here is that the mortgage receipt is not written on any stamp paper nor is the document registered. The fact that the document is not stamped and hence not admissible, does not appears to have objected before the lower court either in the counter or at the time of argument. All the objection that has been referred to and which has been cited by the Court below for allowing the petition and rejecting the document Ex.B.13 and B.14 is that the documents are photocopies and they cannot be received in