Judgment :- 1. The defendants are the revision petitioners in the Civil Revision Petitions. 2. I.A.No.277 of 2014 is filed by the plaintiff to mark the document dated 9/3/1999 which is a sale deed executed by one Liyagath Ali in favour of Sabeena Beevi and I.A.No.278 of 2014 is filed to recall the plaintiff to mark the said document. 3. The above applications are filed by the plaintiff, after the closing of the evidence of P.W.1. The reasons for the delay as stated in the affidavit is that the above said document dated 9/3/1999 could be obtained only then and hence, P.W.1 had to be recalled for marking the same. The plaintiff had not stated any other reason for marking the said document. 4. It is contended by the respondent that the above applications are filed only to delay the proceedings as there is no pleading regarding the above said document which was sought to be marked. The plaintiff has been filing several applications only to procrastinate the proceedings. 5. The lower Court who heard the application, allowed the same on payment of costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants had come up with the above revisions. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The main objection of the counsel for the petitioner is that the document which do not relate to the pleadings are the documents about which nothing has been specified in the plaint cannot be received in evidence. When there is no reference to the said document, which has sought to be received in the pleadings, it is not open to the party to seek leave of the Court to receive such document. Therefore, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the same. 8. In BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in {2001 (3) SCC – 1}, wherein in paragraph 14, it has been held as follows:- “.... 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.” 9. In view of the proposition laid down in the above decision, the document may be received and marked subject to proof and relevancy. 10. In the result, (i). C.R.P.PD (MD) No.212 of 2015 is disposed of, permitting the plaintiff to mark the documents which may be received, subject to proof and relevancy. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (ii). C.R.P.PD (MD) No.213 of 2015 is allowed and the order passed by the Principal Judge, Dindigul in I.A.No.278 of 2014 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 is set aside and the plaintiff is permitted to recall the P.W.1 to mark the said document. No costs.