( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 2 ) THE order impugned in the present civil Revision Petition No. 5062 of 2003 filed by the revision petitioner was made in LA. No, 1647 of 2003 in O. P. No. 1217 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed the petition under section-23 of A. P. Societies Registration act,2001 read with Section 151 C. P. C. praying for restraining respondents 2 to 4 from functioning as in-charge Secretary Secretary, assistant Secretary of the first respondent association, and restraining them from withdrawing any amounts from the bank accounts of 1st respondent and restraining the respondents 5 to 16 from attending the meetings of 1st respondent. The learned judge after framing the points for consideration ultimately allowed the application partly, and aggrieved by the same the petitioner had preferred the present Civil Revision petition. ( 4 ) SRI C. V. Mohan Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents no doubt had placed reliance on several unmarked documents and submitted that there is ample material to show that the subscriptions were paid by respondents 5 to 16 and the learned counsel for the respondents also had explained the urgency involved in the matter. The learned counsel in all fairness submitted that no doubt the documents were not marked on either side of the parties before the learned judge while disposing of the matter. However, the learned counsel would contend that in view of the fact that all the documents filed by the respective parties were called for by this court, this Court can definitely look into the documents available on record and dispose of the Civil Revision Petition on merits on appreciation of the material available on record instead of remitting the matter back to the learned judge, especially, in view of the urgency involved in the matter. The learned counsel also submitted that in the light of the pendency of this litigation, several of the active participants are prevented from participating in the activities of Foot Ball association. ( 5 ) SRI M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner, also submitted that if it is permissible all those documents may be looked into and appropriate orders may be passed by this court. ( 5 ) SRI M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner, also submitted that if it is permissible all those documents may be looked into and appropriate orders may be passed by this court. ( 6 ) I had given my anxious consideration to the reasons recorded by the learned Judge while partly allowing the application. There is no controversy between the parties that certain documents alone had been referred to and certain documents had not been referred to. Apart from this aspect of the matter, at least for the convenient disposal of the matter, these documents filed by the respective parties were not given even exhibit marks. Rule 115 of the A. P. Civil Rules of practice and Circular Orders, 1990 dealing withmarking of Exhibits,reads as here under: (1) Exhibits admitted in evidence shall be marked as follows: (i) If filed by the plaintiff of one or several plaintiffs, with the capital letter a followed by a numeral A-1, A-2, A3 etc. (ii) If filed by the defendant or one of several defendants with the capital letter b followed by a numeral B-1, B-2, B-3 etc. (iii) If court exhibits with the capital letter c followed by a numeral C-1, C-2, C-3 etc. (iv) If third party exhibits, with the capital letter x followed by a numeral X-1, X-2, X-3 etc, (2) The exhibits filed by the several plaintiffs or defendants shall be marked consecutively. (3) If in a proceeding subsequent to the trial of a suit or matter, further exhibits are admitted in evidence, they shall be marked in accordance with the above scheme with numbers consecutive to the number on the last Exhibit previously filed. (3) If in a proceeding subsequent to the trial of a suit or matter, further exhibits are admitted in evidence, they shall be marked in accordance with the above scheme with numbers consecutive to the number on the last Exhibit previously filed. A Division Bench of this Court in T. Bhoopal reddy and another v. Smt. K. R. Laxmi Bat and another, while dealing with the aspect of marking exhibits at interlocutory stage under said Rule 115 observed that the rule envisages marking of documents as exhibits in evidence during trial of suit but however, it does not exclude marking of documents interlocutory matter and no where it is stated that interlocutory matter be decided only on affidavits and hence, directions were given to mark documents on which both sides would rely at interlocutory stage with p and r series to locate the documents and know its contents in order to come to a prima facie conclusion by trial Court and appellate court and observations also were made to incorporate Rule in Civil Rules of Practice to that effect. The Division Bench also held that the view taken by the learned single judge in g. Sambraayam s case 91995 (1) ALT 305) that documents cannot be given a marking in interlocutory applications had been disapproved. ( 7 ) CHAPTER V-A of the A. P. Civil Rules of practice and Circular Orders 1990 deals with interlocutory proceedings and Rule 60 dealing with Proof of facts by affidavits specifies as hereunder:"any fact required to be proved upon an interlocutory proceeding shall unless otherwise provided by these rules, or ordered by the court be provided by affidavit but the Judge may, in any case, direct evidence to be given orally, and thereupon the evidence shall be recorded and exhibits marked in the same manner as in a suit and lists of the witnesses and exhibits shall be prepared and annexed to the judgment". Though, the said Rule 60 is not so clear it is always better while deciding interlocutory applications for the courts to mark the documents relied upon by the respective parties and record the appropriate findings while dealing with the respective documents relied upon by the parties. This practice may have to be necessarily followed both for the convenience of the parties and also for the purpose of recording appropriate and proper findings, while disposing of the interlocutory applications. This practice may have to be necessarily followed both for the convenience of the parties and also for the purpose of recording appropriate and proper findings, while disposing of the interlocutory applications. ( 8 ) HENCE, without going into the merits and demerits, which had been elaborately urged by the both the counsel, the impugned order is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of a copy of this order, in view of the urgency referred to supra. ( 9 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. Noorder as to costs.