Oral Judgment Heard Mr. P.V.Vaidya, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. M.B.Naidu, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition the petitioner challenges order dated 18.6.2007 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 576/95 rejecting the application dated 3.3.2007 filed by the petitioner to decide objection regarding admissibility of the documents tendered in evidence by Vijay, a witness examined by the respondent. 4. The petitioner is the defendant in the above suit filed by respondent/ plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the trial court. 5. In the above suit the plaintiff examined Vijay (P.W.1) who tendered several documents in the course of his evidence. In spite of objection to their admissibility in evidence, they were exhibited by the learned Judge. By application dated 3.3.2007 the defendant prayed that the objection raised by the defendant to the admissibility of the said documents be decided. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. By the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 the learned Judge dismissed the application holding that the application was not maintainable and the objection regarding admissibility would be decided as per law and on merit. Aggrieved by the said order the defendant filed present petition. 6. Mr. Vaidya, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the learned Judge ought to have decided the objection as to the admissibility of the documents before marking them as exhibits in evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the objection regarding admissibility of the documents tendered in evidence by a party cannot be postponed till final arguments in the suit and the same has to be decided at the threshold when the objection is taken by the adverse party. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal and that the learned Judge has not exercised jurisdiction in accordance with law. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments. i) Shantabai Jagannath Jaiswal and others vs. Anandibai Satyanarayan Jaiswal and others. 2007(1) Bom. C.R., 991. ii) Durgashankar S. Trivedi and others vs. Babubhai Bhulabhai Parekh. 2003(4) Bom. C.R., 626 iii) Indrakant Kishordas Shah vs. Keshrinath D. Mhatre. 2005 (Supplementary) Bombay Case Reporter, 30. 7. Per contra Mr. i) Shantabai Jagannath Jaiswal and others vs. Anandibai Satyanarayan Jaiswal and others. 2007(1) Bom. C.R., 991. ii) Durgashankar S. Trivedi and others vs. Babubhai Bhulabhai Parekh. 2003(4) Bom. C.R., 626 iii) Indrakant Kishordas Shah vs. Keshrinath D. Mhatre. 2005 (Supplementary) Bombay Case Reporter, 30. 7. Per contra Mr. Naidu, learned counsel for plaintiff/ respondent submitted that the learned Judge is absolutely justified in passing the impugned order inasmuch as objection regarding admissibility of a document has to be decided by the Court at the conclusion of the trial. The learned counsel further submitted that in case the Judge is called upon to decide every objection as to the admissibility of the documents tendered during the course of evidence in a suit it would unnecessary delay the proceedings inasmuch as either party would challenge the adverse order passed on admissibility of the documents by filing writ petition. He, therefore, submitted that the approach of the trial Judge is in accordance with the settled law laid down by the Apex Court and, therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following Judgments. i) State through Special Cell,New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others. (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 641. ii) Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujrath and another AIR 2001 Supreme Court, 1158. iii) Boman P. Irani and another vs.Manilal P. Gala and others (2004(2) Mh. L.J., 128. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the judgments relied upon. In order to appreciate rival contentions it would be appropriate to quote relevant provisions. They are Order XIII, Rule 4 and 6 and Order XVIII, Rule 4 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. They read thus; O XIII, Rule 4: Endorsement on documents admitted in evidence: (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub- rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely: (a) the number and title of the suit, (b) the name of the person producing the documents, ( c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted; and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. (2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. Rule 6: Endorsements on documents rejected as inadmissible in evidence. Where a document relied on as evidence by either party is considered by the Court to be inadmissible in evidence, there shall be endorsed thereon the particulars mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and © of Rule 4, sub- rule (1), together with a statement of its having been rejected, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge.. O XVIII, Rule 4(1): Recording of evidence: (1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence: Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court.. 9. In Indrakant Shah's case (supra) R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J (as he then was) after considering several Judgments including the Judgment in Bipin Panchal's case relied upon by Mr. Naidu held that in view of the provisions of law namely, Order XIII Rule 4 and 6 and Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Civil Court while recording evidence in a suit has to decide the objection regarding admissibility of the documents in case such a objection is taken by adverse party and the same cannot be deferred till final hearing of the suit. For taking this view the learned Judge placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another ( 2003(8) S.C.C. 752 and Ram Rattan (dead) by legal representatives and others vs. Bajrang Lal and others, (A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court, 1393). Since I am in agreement with the reasonings and conclusion reached by learned Single Judge in the said judgments I do not deem it necessary to reproduce the same. Since I am in agreement with the reasonings and conclusion reached by learned Single Judge in the said judgments I do not deem it necessary to reproduce the same. Under Order XIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court is bound to make endorsements on every document which has been admitted in evidence as mentioned therein and sign the same. In case the document is held inadmissible in evidence the court has also to make endorsement as per Order XIII, Rule 6 and statement of the same having been rejected. Proviso to sub Rule 1 of Rule 4 of Order XVIII provides that the proof and admissibility of the documents filed by the parties along with the affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the court. Reading the above provisions harmoniously, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that when the document is tendered in evidence by a party in a suit the trial court has to decide objection regarding admissibility of the said document and thereafter proceed to record further evidence. The Court cannot proceed to postpone the decision till the final hearing of the suit. 10. I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judges of this Court in Shantabai Jaiswal's case (supra) as well as in the case of Durgashankar Trivedi's case relied upon by Mr. Vaidya. 11. In so far as the authorities relied upon by Mr. Naidu are concerned the Judgments of the Apex court are rendered in criminal matters in which Criminal Procedure Code is applicable. I, therefore, find it difficult to place reliance upon the said Judgments more particularly having regard to the fact that there are no provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure correspondence to the Order XIII, Rules 4 and 6 and Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In so far as the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Boman Irani's case (supra) is concerned, I am unable to place reliance upon the same inasmuch as the learned Judge has delivered the judgment relying upon the judgments in Navjot Sandhu's case and Bipin Panchal's case which are rendered in criminal matters and the other judgments rendered by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in matters arising out of the suits were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. 12. 12. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Judge is patently unsustainable in law. The learned Judge ought to have decided the objection regarding the admissibility of the documents before marking them as exhibits in the course of evidence. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The trial court shall decide the application dated 3.3.2007 filed by the defendant and pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made above. 13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Interim order dated 16.10.2007 passed by this court staying the proceedings before the trial court is vacated. Parties shall appear before the trial court on6.10.2008 at 11.00 a.m.