The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admissibility and relevancy of a document can be decided at the time of disposal of the suit, and the trial court has the authority to make a final ruling on the admissibility and relevancy of the document.

1. The Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 14.10.2009 in I.A.No.1425 of 2009 in O.S.No.628 of 2003 passed by the Learned III Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.1425 of 2009 in O.S.No.628 of 2003 dated 14.10.2009, has, among other things, observed that 'the Ex.B.14-Partition Agreement/Partition Deed has been marked subject to admissibility and relevancy and the nature of document would be decided at the time of disposal of the suit and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.'

3. In the affidavit in I.A.No.1425 of 2009 has averred that the Partition Deed is not a true one and further, in their family, no partition like that has taken place and that the said document has been a created one and also the same has not been registered.

4. Added further, it is the case of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff that the Partition Deed since it is not a registered one, is not a proper document which is to be marked and at earlier point of time, when the said document has been attempted to be marked, the Court has rejected the same because of the objection raised. But when one Iyasamy has been examined as a witness on behalf of the Defendant without prior permission of the Court, the said Partition Deed has been marked as Ex.B.14 (notwithstanding the fact that Court has already refused to mark the same).

5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff, the ingredients of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act have not been fulfilled and since the

Partition Deed is an unregistered invalid document in law, the same has not been sent to R.D.O. for the purpose of impounding. To put it shortly, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has sought for rejection of Ex.B.14-Partition Deed.

6. Before the trial Court, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has filed a counter averring that in the petition, the nomenclature of the document being mentioned as Partition Deed is a wrong one and that the said document has not been written in a stamp paper and Ex.B.14 is only a partition list and in law, the same does not require a compulsory registration. It is also mentioned in the counter that since the Respondent signature is not there in Ex.B.14, the same has not been marked during the enquiry on the side of the Respondent. Further, in the said document, an objection has been raised because there is no signature of the Respondent and therefore, only through the witness Iyasamy, who signed in the document through him, the same has been marked subject to objection raised on the side of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff. C.R.P.No.31 of 2002, this Court has held that a document which has been marked earlier cannot be cancelled and the same can be decided after the completion of the trial of the case.

7. Continuing further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal V. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1 : AIR 2001 SC 1158 wherein it is held that 'Practice to first decide, any objection raised to admissibility of evidence and then proceed further with the trial. Impedes steady and swift progress of Trial and the Courts should not make note of objection, mark objected document tentatively as exhibit and decide objection at final stage.'

8. It is plea of the 1st Respondent/ 1st Defendant that in law, there is no room to cancel the document already that has been marked and therefore, the I.A.No.1425 of 2009 filed by the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff is not maintainable and the same has been filed only with a view to delay the conduct of trial of the suit.

9. It appears that in the main Suit No.628 of 2003, on the behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined. Witness D.W.1 has been examined in full and witness D.W.2 has been examined in part. D.W.2's cross examination is half way through.

10. The Learned Counsel for