ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who are defendants in Title Suit No. 462 of 2010, are aggrieved of order dated 12.08.2016 by which their objection to marking the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985 as an exhibit in the suit has been rejected. 2. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff who was directed to produce the original copy of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985, without seeking modification/recall of the said order, cannot be permitted to produce a certified copy of the sale-deed as secondary evidence. 3. Title Suit No. 462 of 2010 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and confirmation of his possession over the suit land. The plaintiff has laid a claim over the suit land by virtue of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985. The defendants have filed their written statement raising various objections to the maintainability of the suit and they have also raised a counter-claim. During the interrogatories, on application of the defendants vide order dated 14.03.2012 a direction was issued to the plaintiff to produce the original copy of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985. The petitioners have taken a stand that they filed another application on 13.02.2013 seeking a direction upon the plaintiff to produce the original copy of sale-deed dated 16.04.1985. In his rejoinder affidavit, the plaintiff has asserted that the original copy of the sale-deed was not in his possession rather it was with his elder brother. During examination of the plaintiff, however, a certified copy of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985 was tendered in the court and it has been marked as an Exhibit with objection. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have filed an application on 13.04.2016 seeking expunction of certified copy of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985 from the record. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that certified copy of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985 falls under the definition of public document as defined under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and while so, it can always be admitted in evidence. 5. Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that all facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 61 provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. 5. Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that all facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 61 provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Section 62 deals with primary evidence and section 63 declares which document shall be taken in secondary evidence. Conditions under which secondary evidence relating to documents may be permitted are provided under Section 65. Whether the plaintiff has lost the original document, and whether the photocopy of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985 can be admitted in evidence or not, are the issues on which a decision can be rendered only after the parties have led their evidence. Whether a document falls under Section 63 or not, and whether the conditions under Section 65 are fulfilled or not, are also the issues on which the trial court can express its opinion in its judgment, and not before that. The plaintiff has produced certified copy of the sale-deed on which his claim is founded. Admissibility of the document, contents of a document, its genuineness etc., subject to the conditions under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be proved by the parties by leading oral evidence. In fact, in law there is no requirement of filing an application for producing photocopy of a document and, thus, leading secondary evidence. 6. At the stage when a document, which is included in the list of documents, is tendered in evidence through a witness, the court has no power to decline to take the document on record. Objection of a party to the suit to the admissibility of the document shall be considered at the time of final hearing in the suit. At that stage genuineness of the document, admissibility of the document and even contents of a document can be challenged by the other party. This also is open to the other party to contend that, in view of Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, certified copy of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985 is not admissible as secondary evidence. This also is open to the other party to contend that, in view of Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, certified copy of the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985 is not admissible as secondary evidence. In essence, the controversy which has erupted on the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985, in my opinion, must be raised by the defendants at the stage of the final hearing in the suit and not at the stage when they have filed an application under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC. 7. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove the impugned order dated 12.08.2016 stands modified to the extent that it shall remain open to the defendants to raise all such objections relating to the sale-deed dated 16.04.1985, as are available to them in law. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.