JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. Anil Mardikar, learned counsel for the applicant & Mr. O. D. Kakdey, learned counsel for Respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. By this application under Section 482, CLP.C., the applicant is seeking to challenge the orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Washim, in Sessions Trial No.18/ 2001, by which he had exhibited one Video Cassette as per Exh.75, 7/12 extract as per Exh.79 and Map as per Exh.83, subject to objections by defence. 4. It may be stated that when the evidence of witness Markand Patil, Dy. S. P. (A. C) was being recorded in this case, one video cassette and the documents were sought to be proved by the prosecution. The objections were raised by the defence. The specific objection of the defence can be found at Exh.76 filed by the defence. Objection were regarding non-availability of opportunity of cross-examination of the maker of the video cassette & those documents as well as on some other grounds. 5. Learned Trial Judge has passed the order in the evidence itself, saying that the objection shall be decided at the stage of final argument. This order is challenged in this application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant relying on the decision of this Court in 2006(5) ALL MR 526 (Shantabai w/o. Jagannath Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. Anandibai w/o. Satyanarayan Jaiswal & Ors.) contended that the learned trial Judge could have decided the objections raised by the defence at the very threshold and he should not have reserved the consideration of these objections till final hearing of the matter. He derived support from the observations, particularly in para 7 of the said judgment, which read thus "7. The grievance of the petitioners is that in case the trial Court decides to reject the document by not accepting the same, then after closure of the evidence, the petitioners would not be in a position to lead any further evidence in roving the execution of the "Will Deed" and/or its contends. Therefore, the issue of production of the document in evidence by exhibiting the same will have to be decided at the stage at which it is asked for. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a reported judgment in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Therefore, the issue of production of the document in evidence by exhibiting the same will have to be decided at the stage at which it is asked for. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a reported judgment in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V. P. Temple and another ( AIR 2003 SC 4548 ), wherein it was observed by the Apex Court: ".......On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons; firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection ,raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties"." The learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on a reported judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Tukaram Bharadkar Vs. Santosh Gopichand Rane ( 2006(3) Mh.L.J. 811 : 2006(4) ALL MR 645), wherein it is observed: ".......The order to admit or reject the document produced in evidence cannot be postponed to be delivered at the time of final disposal of the suit, as in the case of rejection of document, it must be made known to the party at the time when the document is sought to be produced in evidence. Such information to the concerned party at the relevant time is absolutely necessary to avoid undue hardship to such party." 7. As against this, learned APP for the State though supported the order of the Trial Judge, did not specifically rely on any of the authorities. 8. Considering the observation of this Court, which are based on the judgment of the Apex Court, in this case the application will have to be allowed, saying that the learned Special Judge should have decided the tenability of the objections raised by the defence at the time when they were raised. 8. Considering the observation of this Court, which are based on the judgment of the Apex Court, in this case the application will have to be allowed, saying that the learned Special Judge should have decided the tenability of the objections raised by the defence at the time when they were raised. Therefore, this application will have to be allowed and the learned Special Judge will have to be directed to decide the objections raised by the defence for exhibiting Exh.75 - Video Cassette, Exh.79 - 7/12 extract and Exh.83 - map immediately before the trial proceeds further and he should not reserve the consideration of the same till the final argument. With these observations, rule is made absolute in the above term. Application allowed.