Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 30.07.2009 passed in IA No.236 of 2009 in OS No.85 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money, whereupon the revision petitioner/D5 filed written statement and contested the matter. The plaintiff adduced evidence and closed his side. When the matter was posted for the revision petitioner/ defendants side for adducing evidence, he filed his chief examination affidavit along with certain documents. The Court in the process of giving marking to the documents passed the impugned order to the effect that the documents were irrelevant and that they were only carbon copies of the sales tax department. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision, would develop his arguments to the effect that the trial Court ought not to have passed such an order and due opportunity should have been given for the revision petitioner to adduce evidence on his side. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that absolutely there is no merit in the revision, for the reason that the documents sought to be marked are having no relevance at all. The suit was filed based on the transaction which emerged between the respondent/plaintiff and the defendant partnership firm and in fact, the partnership itself, in recognition of having received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) issued cheque which got bounced, whereupon the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff and in such a case, the documents sought to be marked are having no relevancy at all whatsoever. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the revision. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? 7. At the outset itself, I would like to recall and call up the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported inAIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another), an excerpt from it would run thus: "13. 7. At the outset itself, I would like to recall and call up the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported inAIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another), an excerpt from it would run thus: "13. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) 14. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses." 8. The decision would show that the order passed by the lower Court was unwarranted. The trial Judge was expected to give a marking regarding the objection raised by the plaintiff and at the time of disposal, the learned Judge could have very well passed orders either relying upon it or rejecting it. 9. The decision would show that the order passed by the lower Court was unwarranted. The trial Judge was expected to give a marking regarding the objection raised by the plaintiff and at the time of disposal, the learned Judge could have very well passed orders either relying upon it or rejecting it. 9. Accordingly, I would like to set aside the order of the lower Court and direct the lower Court to give marking to the documents after recording the objection of the plaintiff and ultimately while disposing of the suit, the learned Judge is at liberty either to place reliance on them or reject them. Since the suit is of the year 2006, I would like to fix a time limit of three months for the disposal of the suit itself as per law. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.