Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This Revision petition has been preferred by the abovenamed plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 26.8.1991 passed by Munsif, Koderma in Title Suit No. 40 of 1987 on the ground that without appreciating the orders passed by this Court in Civil Revision application No. 358 of 1991 (R), the learned court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for recording his objection and giving opportunity for consideration of his objection regarding the admissibility of the document. 2. Mr. P.C. Roy appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that the earlier order passed in the Civil Revision, had given direction to the court to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, but I do not find any such direction was given this Court to the lower court rather direction was given to the plaintiff-petitioner in the following manner: The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event, the same document should have been marked with objection. In my opinion, as the petitioner may raise all questions at the time of hearing of the suit itself, no interference is necessary with the impugned order at this stage. 3. On the other hand, Mr. B.M. Prasad, appearing for the Opposite parties vehemently argued on the maintainability of this Revision application. 4. It appears from the impugned order that two of those documents are public documents, so the question of marking them with objection does not arise and practically that contention raised by the plaintiff-petitioner in the earlier Revision petition has not been entertained. If the documents have already been admitted and marked Exhibits, it goes without saying that the plaintiff is at liberty to argue on the relevancy and admissibility of those documents on their contents. I find that the matter is being unnecessarily dragged time and again to this Court from the side of the plaintiff. 5. After the arguments are placed regarding admissibility and relevancy from the side of the plaintiff-petitioner regarding those documents exhibited and contents thereof from the side of the defendant, the same must be recorded and practically the learned court below has also conceded to that position. 6. I find no force in this revision petition, hence the same is rejected.