Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The petition seeking "de-exhibition" of certain documents filed by the landlord was allowed and the aggrieved party is the revision petition before this Court. 2. The documents which were sought to be tendered in evidence and which had been filed in Court were certified copies of certain sale deeds, power of attorney and site plan. The Court rejected them saying that no permission had been obtained to lead secondary evidence and the original documents themselves had not been exhibited and hence, the documents could not be, therefore, taken as exhibits. In my view, such a procedure is not contemplated though it can be a matter of practice obtaining in some Courts. The Evidence Act contains procedure for reception of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act said Section details the several circumstances when secondary evidence could be adduced. By the very nature of things, the offer of a party to give proof of the facts through secondary evidence is a matter of evidence and not a smarter of essential pleading. Although it could still be stated that evidence without a pleading may not be possible but the circumstances detailing the reception of secondary evidence itself may not be strictly a matter of pleading. The offer by a party to tender secondary evidence could be at best impeached in the cross-examination by a party aggrieved by reception of such secondary evidence. The Court, which examines the case shall decide if it is appropriate to rely on secondary evidence and that any of the circumstances contemplated under Section 65 are complied with and if, on the other hand, by the examination of the quality, of evidence, the Court finds that circumstances providing for secondary evidence are not satisfied, the Court shall be at liberty to eschew secondary evidence. 3. In this case, the order de-exhibiting documents on the ground that no permission had been previously sought for can not stand the scrutiny of law. The Honble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 859: (2001) 3 SCC1 had particularly castigated the practice of stalling proceedings at the time of trial by taking objections relating to the reception of documents. The Honble Supreme Court would characterize it as an archaic practice to invite a ruling of the Court regarding the admissibility of a document. The Honble Supreme Court would characterize it as an archaic practice to invite a ruling of the Court regarding the admissibility of a document. Though the decision was rendered while addressing a case under Code of Criminal Procedure, the case has been followed in several decisions in civil cases also. Dynamics of the procedure that address the malady of delays during trial have resulted in an approach, which would allow proceedings to go without any obstruction. The reception of the documents and the attempt of a party to exhibit them could not have been thrown out at the threshold even before the party tenders evidence regarding the admissibility of the same. 4. The order passed by the Court below is wholly erroneous and is set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be permitted to tender the documents in evidence in the manner outlined above.