Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The defendant has come to this Court against an order dated 13.1.2006 passed by Munsif 1st, Siwan in Title Suit No. 86 of 1996, by which a document being a deed of mortgage was refused to admit in evidence on the admission of plaintiff. 3. The defendant-petitioner submits that the plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted of a mortgage deed. As that deed was not on record, the defendant filed an application to bring it on record. The same has been permitted by order dated 18.8.2005. Then an application was filed that as the plaintiff himself had admitted such a document the said document may be admitted in evidence on admission of plaintiff. This was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff when he deposed was not confronted with the document and now when the evidence of defendant is at the verge of closer, such a document cannot be permitted to be admitted in evidence. 4. The plaintiff has appeared. 5. Heard the parties and with their consent this revision application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 6. Admittedly, when the plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted such a document, it was necessary for the defendant to confront then and there with the document. That having not been done after the plaintiffs evidence was closed, the same document cannot now be admitted in evidence by the admission of the plaintiff. 7. It appears that on 18.8.05 the trial court permitted the defendant to bring on record the document as the same document was not produced either alongwith the written statement or at the time of framing of issues. As such the order impugned cannot be questioned but, however, by the impugned order the trial court has held that the document not having been produced at the time of framing of issues it cannot be admitted in evidence at all. This part of the order cannot be sustained. Once an order, permitting the defendant to lead that evidence was passed on 18.8.05 on payment of cost, then the said document now can be led in evidence, if it is duly proved by the defendant himself. The only difference would be that the document would be a document brought on record by the defendant and not on admission of plaintiff but nevertheless the document can be brought on record. 8. The only difference would be that the document would be a document brought on record by the defendant and not on admission of plaintiff but nevertheless the document can be brought on record. 8. To that extent, the order impugned is set aside and with the above observation this revision application stands disposed of.