Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 24.10.2008 passed in I.A.No.313 of 2008 in O.S.No.364 of 2004, by the learned District Munsif Court, Pattukkotai. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A recapitulation and re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.313 of 2008 with the following prayer: The plaintiff resisted the said application. Whereupon, the trial Court passed the order dismissing the application. ”Tamil” 4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision petition and by drawing the attention of this Court to various portions of the records would implore and entreat that the trial Court was not expected to go into all aspects of the matter at the threshold itself, and due opportunity should have been given to the defendant in permitting the defendant to file the said document. But, the trial Court dilated much on the merits of he document and held that the said document itself is inadmissible. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would pray for setting aside the order of the lower Court and for allowing the I.A. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would pyramid his arguments to the effect that the very prayer in the application itself is something unknown to law; the trial Court cannot be called upon to decide the admissibility or otherwise of the document by filing such application; the said document is an unstamped and unregistered one and no legality can be attached to it and therefore, the lower Court was justified in preventing the attempt of the defendant to drag on the proceedings by putting into the Court the inadmissible piece of evidence. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court in holding that the document itself is an inadmissible piece of evidence? The Point: 7. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following 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). Certain excerpts from it, would run thus: "10. ..... The Point: 7. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following 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). Certain excerpts 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 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. 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) 8. A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid precedent would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that the Honourable Apex Court detailed and delineated the procedure in marking the documents. Here, obviously and axiomatically, there is delay on the part of the defendant in filing the document. A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid precedent would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that the Honourable Apex Court detailed and delineated the procedure in marking the documents. Here, obviously and axiomatically, there is delay on the part of the defendant in filing the document. It is axiomatic and obvious that along with the written statement, the defendant is enjoined to file all the documents and if for any reasons, a document could not be filed, then with the leave of the Court alone, could be filed. In this case, the prayer in the petition might give an impression as though a larger relief was sought for by the defendant. However, it is open for the court to grant only a limited relief permissible under law. At this stage, the Court is only concerned with the fact as to whether the defendant should be permitted to file the document or not, but the validity of that document need not be gone into. So far this case is concerned, the suit itself is one for declaration and recovery of possession of an immovable property. It is the contention of the defendant in the written statement itself that there emerged the said agreement dated 25.04.1987 between the parties before the Panchayatars and as such, he wants to present the said document during the trial. Wherefore, it has to be seen as to whether such opportunity to file the said document should be given to him or not. 9. In the interest of justice and in view of audi alteram partem and the legal maxims: (i) Justitia nemini neganda est. (Justice is to be denied to no one.) (ii) Justitia non est neganda, non differenda. (Justice is not to be denied or delayed); the order passed by the lower Court is liable to be set aside, subject to the payment of costs. The lower Court could have very well permitted the defendant to file the document subject to proof admissibility and relevancy of that document. But that was not done so. However the trial Court went to the extent of looking into the merits of that decree and ultimately, held that such document was an inadmissible piece of evidence. 10. The lower Court could have very well permitted the defendant to file the document subject to proof admissibility and relevancy of that document. But that was not done so. However the trial Court went to the extent of looking into the merits of that decree and ultimately, held that such document was an inadmissible piece of evidence. 10. Hence, I would like to set aside the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.313 of 2008 and permit the petitioner to file such document which could be taken on file subject to proof admissibility and relevancy. I would like to dispel any misgiving in this aspect by highlight and spotlight that it is open for the defendant to voluntarily come forward to pay the penalty and stamp duty on that document and in such an event, it is open for the trial Court to hear both sides and adjudge the stamp duty and penalty payable on it. Notwithstanding that it is an unregistered one, stamp duty or penalty could be collected, over which there could be no second thought. Regarding the admissibility of the document is concerned, the objection of the plaintiff has to be recorded by the trial Court at the time of recording the deposition of the defendant and thereafter, the trial Court shall reserve the order thereon so as to be passed along with the judgment in the suit. The defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) as costs to the plaintiff within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as a condition precedent to enjoy the fruit of this order. 11. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.