JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 06.09.2005 and dated 10.11.2006 as passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No.24/2004 in relation to an objection raised by the defendant-petitioner on admissibility of a document in evidence on the ground that the document was alleged to be that of a sale transaction but was neither executed on proper stamp nor was registered. 2. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to dispose of the said objection by the order dated 06.09.2005 with the observation that relevancy of the document would be considered only at the time of final hearing of the matter and such objection cannot be raised at the time of exhibiting the document in evidence. The learned Trial Court has also observed that the questions as to whether the document sought to be executed by the plaintiff was a receipt or a sale deed and whether it was relevant or not, would be considered only at the time of final arguments. The prayer for review of the order so made on 06.09.2005 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.11.2006. 3. In this writ petition, show cause notices were issued on 23.01.2007 and, while staying operation of the impugned order, proceedings in the suit were, however,directed to continue. This writ petition was, thereafter, admitted for consideration on 03.03.2008. On the matter being taken up for final orders today, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in all fairness, and rightly, submitted that the plaintiff shall not stand ceremonies and the matter may be sent to the learned Trial Court for decision on such objection in accordance with law. At the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, and having regard to the overall circumstances, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 4. From the impugned orders it appears that the learned Trial Court has not taken into comprehension the substance of the objection as raised by the defendant; and has proceeded in a cursory manner as if it were a question relating only to the relevancy of the document. The objection had been about admissibility of the document for want of proper stamp duty and for want of registration. The objection had been about admissibility of the document for want of proper stamp duty and for want of registration. Having regard to the questions involved in the matter, correct approach of the learned Trial Court would have been to examine record of the case and to decide the objection on its merits in accordance with law. The impugned orders dated 06.09.2005 and 10.11.2006 cannot be sustained and the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly not attempted to justify the same. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned orders dated 06.09.2005 and 10.11.2006; and the matter stands remitted to the Trial Court for deciding the objection as raised by the defendant, of course, in accordance with law. No costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******