JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 27.08.2012 passed in I.A.No.1377 of 2012 in O.S.No.222 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed a representative suit and the trial commenced. During the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, a certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.46 of 1930 was marked as Ex.A.2. As against which, the first defendant filed I.A.No.1377 of 2012 for erasing the marking of the document on the various grounds. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the lower Court passed an elaborate order which in my opinion is totally antithetical to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported 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 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 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. 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." 4. The trial Court was expected to record the objection of the defendant and reserve it for final orders to be passed along with the disposal of the suit. As such, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the lower Court is directed to record the objections of the defendant and thereafter while disposing of the suit, pass orders thereon. Accordingly, the lower Court shall do well to see that O.S.No.222 of 2004 is disposed of as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The lower Court, while disposing the suit, shall decide on that objection untrammeled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this Civil Revision Petition. 5. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.