JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 12th February, 2009, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant filed on 25th August, 2008. 2. The brief facts, necessary for the adjudication of the instant petition are that the plaintiff filed an affidavit and he himself exhibited the document, a reference whereof is found to have been made in the affidavit itself. One document, agreement to sell was exhibited by the plaintiff himself as Exhibit-1 and the same was shown to have been exhibited in the affidavit of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant filed an application on 25th August. 2008 imploring that the exhibit, marked by the plaintiff himself, should he deleted, as the document was insufficiently stamped. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the learned Trial Court dismissed the application merely on the ground that since the document had already been exhibited as Exhibit-1, the exhibit already marked could not be deleted. Learned Counsel further contended that if the document was insufficiently stamped, the same was not admissible in evidence and it could not be exhibited. The objection in this regard could be raised by the adversary even at the later stage. He has cited the judgment of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2001 SC 1158 and Shyamal Kumar Roya v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal, 2007 (1) ELC (SC) Civil 283 = AIR 2007 SC 637 . in support thereof. Learned Counsel further contended that since the document was exhibited in his absence and, when the occasion arose, he raised an objection but the same was dismissed without assigning any lawful reason. Thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. E. converso, learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant (supported?) the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper, which did not warrant any intervention. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant provisions of law including the impugned order, it is noticed that the learned Trial Court dismissed the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant merely on the ground that since the document had already been exhibited, the exhibit mark could not be deleted. 6. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant provisions of law including the impugned order, it is noticed that the learned Trial Court dismissed the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant merely on the ground that since the document had already been exhibited, the exhibit mark could not be deleted. 6. A bird's eye view of some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court throwing light on this issue needs to be taken into consideration. In the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another (supra). the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus "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 that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting such a course. The Court however made 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." In the case of Shyamal Kurnar Roy v. Sushil Kurnar Agarwal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus "what was necessary was that the document should be marked in presence of the parties and they had an opportunity to object to the marking of the document. The question of judicial determination of the matter would arise provided an objection is taken what document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. Before the learned Trial Judge, reliance was placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vemi Reddy Kota Reddy v. Vemi Reddy Prabhakar Reddy, (2004) 3 ICC 832 In that case there was nothing on record to show that the document was marked as an exhibit after an objection has been raised. The said case, therefore, has also no application to the facts of the present case." 7. The said case, therefore, has also no application to the facts of the present case." 7. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the plaintiff filed his own affidavit along with one document agreement to sell, which was scribed on a Rs. 100/- stamp. While adducing the evidence in the Court, the plaintiff himself marked the exhibit as Exhibit-1 on the document. When the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant raised an objection at the relevant point of time that this document was insufficiently stamped and not admissible in evidence, hence, exhibit mark should be deleted. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant was disallowed for the simple reason that since the document had already been exhibited, it could not be deleted under the provisions of law. The approach of the learned Trial Court does not seem to be legal and in accordance with the provisions of law. When any document is required to be impounded in evidence and the objection is raised by the adversely, then, it was for the Trial Court to first decide the objection and thereafter, the Court would have proceeded further, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another (supra). 8. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned order rendered by the learned Court does not seem to be legal and just and the same being contrary to the provisions of law, deserves to be set aside. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 12th February, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3. Bharatpur stands set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to first settle the objection with regard to the admissibility of the document, which has been said to be insufficiently stamped and thereafter. proceed with the trial of the suit.Appeal Disposed Of. *******