Short Note : 1. The first ground on which the suit has been remanded is that the trial Court was in error in admitting Ex.D-5, a certified copy of summons, when the original summons was not produced. According to the view taken by the lower appellate Court, summons is not a public document and therefore, certified copy was not admissible. The appellate Court, further doubted the correctness of the copy. Now it is clear from the record of the trial Court that no objection was taken at the time when the certified copy Ex.D-5 was admitted into evidence and marked as an exhibit. When no objection was taken at any stage in the trial Court to the admission of Ex.P-5, no objection regarding its admissibility could be taken for the first time in appeal because objections as to the mode of proof must be taken by a party at the stage when the document is being marked as an exhibit. Assuming, therefore, that a summons is not a public document, the admissibility of Ex.D-5 could not be objected to in appeal. 2. In case the appellate Court bad some doubt about the correctness of the copy, it could have summoned the record containing the original summons and could have itself seen it instead of remanding the case for that purpose to the trial Court. The second ground on which the order of remand is passed is that the trial Court did not frame any issue whether Lotan and Nandlal were necessary parties to the earlier suit. It is not disputed that these persons were not parties. The question whether they ought to have been joined as parties was a question of law and could have been decided by the appellate Court itself. Even if the issue needed the recording of evidence, the appellate Court could have recorded evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate Court could, have also required the trial Court to record evidence on that particular issue and to send back its finding to the appellate Court. In any case, there was no justification whatsoever for setting aside the decree of the trial Court and remanding the case as a whole for fresh trial and disposal. Revision allowed.