( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) THE order under challenge was passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a first appeal in the following circumstances: the respondent, the landlord of premises in Bangalore, was sued by the appellant tenant for breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. During the course of the examination-in-chief of the Chief Administrative Officer of the tenant, the lease deed dated 1-8-1994 was produced. The transcript of the evidence shows that: "the same is marked as Exhibit P-6. (Subject to objection, the same is marked.)" It appears from the order of the trial court that the Chief Administrative Officer of the tenant was cross-examined only in part. Due to the failure of the landlord to remain present thereafter, despite being given sufficient opportunity, the cross-examination of the Chief administrative Officer was not completed nor did the landlord adduce his own evidence. The trial court then delivered the judgment, taking into account, inter alia, the lease Exhibit P-6, and it decreed the suit. ( 3 ) THEREAGAINST, the landlord filed the first appeal before the High Court. The High Court, by the judgment and order under challenge, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and remanded the suit to the trial court for "fresh disposal". This was done for the reason that"the trial Judge has relied upon these documents which were marked subject to objection. These documents could not have been looked into while deciding this case. In the absence of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement Ext. P-6, which the Court cannot look into, it is difficult for the Court to decide the contention raised by the parties". The High Court added that it "could not decide the admissibility or otherwise of those documents marked subject to objection in the absence of any decision of the trial court". Therefore, in its opinion, the suit required consideration at the hands of the trial court itself. ( 4 ) THE lease Exhibit P-6, was marked as an exhibit, subject to objection, during the course of the examination-in-chief of the Chief Administrative officer of the tenant. At that time, the landlord was present and raised an objection. Accordingly, the document was marked "subject to objection". When the time came for consideration of the objections, the landlord was not present. At that time, the landlord was present and raised an objection. Accordingly, the document was marked "subject to objection". When the time came for consideration of the objections, the landlord was not present. As the record shows, he had abandoned the case while the cross- examination of the Chief Administrative Officer was still incomplete and had, thereafter, not led evidence himself. There was, therefore, no one to press the objection nor is there anything to indicate that the landlord had stated what the objection was. There was, in the circumstances, every reason for the trial court to proceed upon the basis that Exhibit P-6 was marked in evidence without objection and take it into consideration without qualification. ( 5 ) THE High Court was in error in holding, in the circumstances, that the trial court should not have looked into the documents, including the lease exhibit P-6, which had been admitted in evidence subject to objection. It was in error in assuming that the terms and conditions of the lease Exhibit P-6, could not be looked into and that, therefore, there was virtually no evidence on record to decide the matter. ( 6 ) WE think, therefore, that the judgment and order of the High Court should be set aside and the order of the trial court restored. ( 7 ) THE civil appeal is allowed accordingly. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the landlord states that the tenant is in arrears. If so, he is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings, which shall be decided according to law. ( 9 ) NO order as to costs.