JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Shri Sachin Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The following issues which arise for consideration in this appeal is that :

(i) Whether the document (order of Assistant Commissioner dated 04.10.1978) was admissible in evidence?

(ii) Whether on account of the failure of the appellant to object to admissibility of the said document at the time of its presentation before the learned court below precludes the appellants from raising such objections at a later stage in the proceedings?

3. The photocopy of the order dated 04.10.1978 was presented before the court along with the delay condonation application. The document was registered as 35C/169C by the learned appellant court. The delay condonation application was allowed by the learned appellate court on the foot of the aforesaid document. The order passed by the learned appellate court dated 01.05.2013 allowing the delay condonation application has attained finality. The appellants assailed the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2013 by instituting the writ petition registered as Writ-C No.36104 of 2013 (Jagannath Ji/Jagdish Ji Virajman Mandir Katra and another v. Mahant Vijai Ram Das Chela Ganga Ram Das and another). The following order was passed by this Court in the said writ petition :

"Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the writ petition has become infructuous.

The writ petition is dismissed as such."

4. It is evident that the appellants did not press the challenge to the order allowing delay condonation application. The appellant waived their rights to challenge all documents on which reliance was placed in the said order. The delay condonation application was part of the appeal court proceedings.

5. Once a challenge to a particular document has been waived, the party cannot resile from its conscious stand and assail the said document belatedly in appeal. The rational for insisting upon the parties to object to the document at the earliest stage is not far to seek. Such a challenge is consistent with rules of fair play, and enables the opposing side to rectify curable defects or lead evidence to support the document.

6. The narrative will now be fortified by the authorities in point. Considering the belated challenge to the admissibility of a document, the Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesarasami and V.P. Temple reported at (2003) 8 SCC 752 held thus :

"20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on The Roman Catholic Mission Vs. 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 not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the m