Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 24.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.1439 of 2010 in O.S.No.70 of 2006, by the learned District Munsif, Manaparai. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumb-nail sketch of the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as against the revision petitioner/defendant in connection with some alleged false complaint lodged by the defendant as against the plaintiff. The written statement was filed by the defendant. The trial commenced. At that time, the plaintiff filed the I.A.No.875 of 2008, to get marked a xerox copy of a partition list; whereupon the order was passed dismissing the said application. As against the said order, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.904 of 2009 was filed and in that, this Court passed the following order: "6. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of D. Sarasu V. Jayalakshmi and 2 Others, 2001-2-L.W.255 and argued that the xerox copy can be marked. In the above case, notice was given to the respondents which was not produced and the copy of the document was with the party. So the document was ordered to be marked. But in the present case, the original is available with the Committee. The Revision Petitioner did not try to get the original. Nothing prevented the Revision Petitioner to summon the Committee to get back the document. After issuing summons, he can get back the document. 7. In view of the above stated reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. If original was not produced, he can approach the Court for relief. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 is closed. No costs. Subsequently, I.A.No.1439 of 2010 was filed by the same plaintiff seeking the following relief: “Tamil” The counter affidavit was filed. Whereupon the lower Court allowed the said application. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed by the revision petitioner/defendant on various grounds. 5. No costs. Subsequently, I.A.No.1439 of 2010 was filed by the same plaintiff seeking the following relief: “Tamil” The counter affidavit was filed. Whereupon the lower Court allowed the said application. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed by the revision petitioner/defendant on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant by inviting the attention of this Court to various portions of the records, would develop her arguments which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: The plaintiff is now attempting to mark a photocopy of a notarized copy of one partition muchalika dated 22.07.1990. No doubt, some talk went on between the parties, but the photocopy of a notarized copy of muchalika which is sought to be put forth before this Court does not reflect the true muchalika. Such photo copy of some notarized copy cannot be admitted in evidence. The lower Court simply ignoring the legal positions, allowed the said application warranting interference in this Civil Revision Petition. 6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner/defendant, would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: The available document only is produced. Merely because, it is a photocopy of a notarized copy of the original muchalika, that could not be prevented from being marked as otherwise the petitioner would not be in a position to prove his contentions before the Court. Over and above that, the plaintiff is not trying to get any relief by way of enforcing that muchalika, but only for the purpose of probablising his case in the plaint for recovery of damages, such a copy is sought to be marked and the lower Court correctly and appositely allowed that i.A. so as to facilitate the marking of the document. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether a photocopy of a notarized copy of unregistered muchalika can be permitted to file and mark in a civil litigation and there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court or not? The Point: 8. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether a photocopy of a notarized copy of unregistered muchalika can be permitted to file and mark in a civil litigation and there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court or not? The Point: 8. The crucial and paramount law point for consideration is as to whether the photocopy of the notarized attested copy of muchalika could be marked in a civil proceeding. 9. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would cite the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hariom Agrawal Vs. Prakash Chand Malviya dated 08.10.2007 and an excerpt from it, would run thus: "13. The first limb of Section 35 clearly shuts out from evidence any instrument chargeable with duty unless it is duly stamped. The second limb of it which relates to acting upon the instrument will obviously shut out any secondary evidence of such instrument, for allowing such evidence to be let in when the original admittedly chargeable with duty was not stamped or insufficiently stamped, would be tantamount to the document being acted upon by the person having by law or authority to receive evidence. Proviso(a) is only applicable when the original instrument is actually before the Court of law and the deficiency in stamp with penalty is paid by the party seeking to rely upon the document. Clearly secondary evidence either by way of oral evidence of the contents of the unstamped document or the copy of it covered by Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act would not fulfil the requirements of the proviso which enjoins upon the authority to receive nothing in evidence except the instrument itself. Section 35 is not concerned with any copy of an instrument and a party can only be allowed to rely on a document which is an instrument for the purpose of Section 35. Instrument is defined in Section 2(14) as including every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. There is no scope for inclusion of a copy of a document as an instrument for the purpose of the Stamp Act." 10. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would rely on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1. There is no scope for inclusion of a copy of a document as an instrument for the purpose of the Stamp Act." 10. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would rely on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1. Certain excerpts from it, would run thus: 12. As pointed out earlier, on different occasions the trial Judge has chosen to decide questions of admissibility of documents or other items of evidence, as and when objections thereto were raised and then detailed orders were passed either upholding or overruling such objections. The worse part is that after passing the orders the trial court waited for days and weeks for the parties concerned to go before the higher courts for the purpose of challenging such interlocutory orders. 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 14. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 14. 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.) 15. 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. 16. We, therefore, make the above as a procedure to be followed by the trial courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence." 11. 16. We, therefore, make the above as a procedure to be followed by the trial courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence." 11. I would like to suo motu rely upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (2010) 8 SCC 423 (Shalimar Chemical Works Limited vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries and others))and certain excerpt from it would run thus: "10. ..... An objection to the admissibility of the document can be raised before such endorsement is made and the court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend, the document being endorsed, admitted or not admitted in evidence. In support of the submission he relied upon a decision of this Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple where it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 764, para 20) '20. … The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as ‘an exhibit’, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court.' (emphasis in original). 15. On a careful consideration of the whole matter, we feel that serious mistakes were committed in the case at all stages. The trial court should not have “marked” as exhibits the xerox copies of the certificates of registration of trade mark in face of the objection raised by the defendants. It should have declined to take them on record as evidence and left the plaintiff to support its case by whatever means it proposed rather than leaving the issue of admissibility of those copies open and hanging, by marking them as exhibits subject to objection of proof and admissibility. The appellant, therefore, had a legitimate grievance in appeal about the way the trial proceeded." (Underlined by me) 12. The appellant, therefore, had a legitimate grievance in appeal about the way the trial proceeded." (Underlined by me) 12. A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid precedent would unambiguously and unequivocally, highlight and spotlight the fact that a photocopy of a notarized copy cannot be allowed to be filed and marked in civil proceedings. Simply because Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, provides for secondary evidence to be adduced, such copy of a notarized copy cannot be allowed to be marked, because there should be some sanctity attached to the civil proceedings as valuable civil right has to be adjudicated in civil proceeding. If such unauthorised documents are allowed to be filed in civil litigation, it would pave the way for mushroom growth of litigation cases. 13. Here, the contention on the side of the plaintiff is that as per the said copy of the notarised copy of muchalika, no remedy is sought for by way of enforcing the contents of it. Such a contention is neither here nor there. Whether the said document is sought to be enforced or not, there should be admissibility of the said document as per law. Simply because in the written statement, the defendant admitted certain discussions emerged between the parties and a muchalika got emerged that does not mean that the defendant admitted the said photocopy of the document in toto. A portion, the admitted facts alone in stricto sensu can be admitted in evidence and not the photocopy of a notarized copy of a document. 14. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am of the considered view that the lower Court simply misinterpreted the law and allowed the said application so as to enable the respondent to mark the photocopy of the notarized copy of the muchalika. The lower Court in its order dilated much which was not germane to decide the point in issue. The lower Court observed that inasmuch as P.W.2 disowned any copy of muchalika available with him, the marking of the copy could be permitted and it would not prejudice on merit. Obviously and axiomatically, as it is, such a ratiocination adhered to by the lower Court is far from satisfactory. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the lower Court is not in accordance with law and it is liable to be set aside. The point is answered accordingly. Obviously and axiomatically, as it is, such a ratiocination adhered to by the lower Court is far from satisfactory. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the lower Court is not in accordance with law and it is liable to be set aside. The point is answered accordingly. 15. On balance, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand allowed and the order passed by the lower Court I.A.No.1439 of 2010 in O.S.No.70 of 2006 is set aside. To treat this order on an even heal, I would like to observe that it is open for the plaintiff to adduce oral evidence relating to that muchalika because that muchalika was not expected to be stayed and registered as a document. Wherefore oral evidence is not barred there at. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.