Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- In his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession to the extent of 1/2 share in property bearing No.XIX-310 (new) and 349 (old), Dr. Sham Singh Road, Ludhiana and that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 20 of 1991 titled Jasjit Singh and Manpreet Singh Vs. Kant Kaur dated 10.10.1991 is null and void and ineffective on his rights, Prem Harjit Singh, the plaintiff, appeared in the witness box and tendered for his examination in chief his affidavit in which he exhibited nine documents from Ex. P3 to P9.

2. Defendants No.1 and 2, the petitioners, had filed an application for de-exhibiting documents, Ex. P3 to P9 on the ground that those documents were not per se admissible and were not proved in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act.

3. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff claiming the same to be not maintainable. It is also alleged that the same is abuse of the process of law. He has claimed that some documents produced are original while the others are certified copies. The application is claimed to have been filed with malafide intention and it is prayed to be dismissed with special costs.

4. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dismissed the application vide order dated 15.10.2011 (Annexure P/4) and it is this order, which is challenged by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendants No.1 and 2.

I have heard Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully.

5. Learned trial court has dismissed the application for deexhibiting documents, Ex. P3 to P9 for four reasons, which are as under:-

1). The cross-examination of the witness, who has exhibited these documents is yet to be conducted.

2). Mere marking of documents as exhibits did not imply that the same would be read into evidence and rather this aspect would be considered when the entire evidence would be appreciated.

3). It is not the objection taken by a party which would determine the admissibility of the documents and rather it would have to be seen by the court.

4). Objection to the admissibility of the documents was not raised by the party at the time when these documents were filed.

6. There appears an apparent conflict in the reasoning adopted by learned trial court. On the one hand, learned trial court says that objection was not raised by the party when these documents were filed and on the other hand, she has mentioned that the cross-examination of the witness, who has exhibited these documents is yet to be conducted. The question of prime importance that arises for an answer is as to what is the stage of deciding the objection raised by a party to the admissibility of the documents exhibited by the witness of the other party or the other party himself. Answer to this question can be found in a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and others 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 705, wherein it is laid down as under:-

“19. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on The Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1457 in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes :- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does no