L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in o. S. No. 52 of 1996, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. The suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 3, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The recording of evidence is in progress. During the course of his evidence, the fourth respondent, who is the defendant No. 3 in the suit, filed documents Exs. B1 to B-27. The petitioners raised an objection as to the admissibility of ex. B-1. According to them though it is named as an agreement of sale, for all practical purposes, it is a sale deed and is inadmissible in evidence, since it was not registered. It was also contended that the mandal Revenue Officer treated the same as sale deed and collected stamp duty upon the document. The petitioners filed LA. No. 251 of 2004, raising this objection. The trial Court rejected the I. A through its order dated 1-10-2004. Hence this Civil Revision petition. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitionerssubmits that the trial Court ought to have decided the question of admissibility of ex. B-1, before the evidence of the fourth respondnet is concluded and it is impermissible to postpone the same to a subsequent stage. ( 3 ) THROUGH the order under revision, thetrial Court took the view that the objections as to the admissibility of the document, raised by the petitioners herein can be considered at the time of hearing of the suit. The question is whether such a course is permissible in law. ( 4 ) WHENEVER a party intends to adducedocumentary evidence before a trial Court, two aspects arise in relation thereto, namely, proof and admissibility. The first aspect is mostly factual in nature, whereas the second one is governed purely by legal principles. Though in ordinary course of things both the aspects are dealt with at the stage of receiving the documents in evidence, it is permissible in law, to postpone the consideration of the question of admissibility, to a subsequent stage. Such a facility, however, is not available in relation to proof. The reason is that the party intending to adduce the documentary evidence is required to be informed of the opinion of the court as to proof, at the earliest possible stage. Such a facility, however, is not available in relation to proof. The reason is that the party intending to adduce the documentary evidence is required to be informed of the opinion of the court as to proof, at the earliest possible stage. In case the objection raised by the other side as to proof is sustained, the party intending to adduce such evidence may resort to some other mode of proof. Therefore, that question cannot be postponed to a subsequent stage. Same is not the case with the admissibility. ( 5 ) JUDICIAL pronouncements are to the effect that the question of admissibility can be considered at the subsequent stages in the same suit, and even at the stages of appeal and second appeal. Reference in this context may be made to the judgment of the supreme Court in R. V. E. Venkatachala gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswami and v. P. Templed Through the impugned order, the trial Court did not reject or uphold the objection raised by the petitioners. On the other hand, the question was postponed to be dealt with, at a subsequent stage. No exception can be taken to the same. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order of the trial Court. ( 6 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to canvass their objections, as to admissibility of Ex. B-1, at the stage of hearing of the suit. There shall do no order as to costs.