ORDER : 1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs: “7. (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21-02-2019 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad passed below Exh.84 and 85 in Civil Suit No.439 of 2005 and further be pleased to allow the applications at Exh.84 and 85 filed by the petitioner in the said suit in the interest of justice. (B) During the pendency of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Civil Suit No.439 of 2005 filed at City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad filed by the respondent herein in the interest of justice. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other order/s in the interest of justice.” 2. The background of facts which has led to filing of this petition before this Court is that petitioners’ grandfather had filed one suit against the respondent-society in the court of Board of Nominees being Suit No.2993 of 2002 seeking declaration to the effect that he was legally owner of Plot No.10 and lawful member of the society. On 22.04.2003, the suit came to be dismissed against which an appeal was filed before the appellate forum which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2017. It is further the case of the petitioners that grandfather of the petitioners had submitted one application to produce xerox copies of original documents with a further request to return original documents after comparing with the xerox copies as the original documents were of such a nature that they were likely to be torn or lost from the file. The said documents were given exhibit nos. 33 to 37 after comparing with the original ones and original documents were handed over back. It is further the case of the petitioners that respondent-society has filed a Civil Suit No.439 of 2005 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and the petitioners before the said City Civil Court have produced original certificates in a laminated form with exhibit nos. 84 and 85 to allow its production and give exhibit but the said application was rejected vide impugned order dated 21.02.2019. 84 and 85 to allow its production and give exhibit but the said application was rejected vide impugned order dated 21.02.2019. It is this order which is made the subject matter of present petition before this Court as the documents are vital in nature for consideration, according to the petitioners. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr.Tanmay B.Karia appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that these original documents which were in a laminated form were the very same documents which were produced before the appropriate forum in a suit which was filed by the petitioners' grandfather. So much so, that xerox copies of these documents were given exhibit numbers after comparing the same by the Court and these original documents were returned to the grandfather, and therefore, nothing new is produced by the petitioners and at least in the larger interest of justice these documents which are touching to the root of controversy, deserves to be allowed to be produced. On the contrary, since these documents were original documents and the xerox copies were given the exhibit numbers, there was hardly any justification in not considering the request of the petitioners. 3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Karia appearing for the petitioners has further additionally contended that even apart from that the serious error of jurisdiction is committed by the court below by not examining the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal versus State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2001 (3) G.L.R. 2024 and has submitted that even in case of objection raised against giving exhibit numbers then, tentative exhibits could have been given or in the alternative by recording the objected part of the oral evidence, but, in any case the ratio laid down by the Apex Court could have not been ignored by the learned trial Judge. Accordingly, this being a serious error of jurisdiction, the order under challenge is required to be set aside. 3.2. Even apart from that, learned advocate Mr.Karia appearing for the petitioners has further contended that no justifiable reasons are assigned to substantiate the conclusion arrived at by the Court below. Hence, in that view of the matter, the request is made to allow the petition by granting relief as prayed for. 4. 3.2. Even apart from that, learned advocate Mr.Karia appearing for the petitioners has further contended that no justifiable reasons are assigned to substantiate the conclusion arrived at by the Court below. Hence, in that view of the matter, the request is made to allow the petition by granting relief as prayed for. 4. To meet with the stand taken by learned advocate Mr.Tanmay B.Karia appearing for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.Milan S.Bhatt appearing for the respondent-society has submitted that there is a serious allegation against such production of documents particularly in view of the fact that these documents are not the genuine documents, the documents are not found to be produced after getting back from the lavad suit, there is no endorsement on these documents either of the Court officer or the learned Judge, and hence, the story which has been put up that these documents are taken back from the lavad Court and then produced is not believable. It has further been contended that on the contrary grandfather was merely a Watchman in the society and has made an serious attempt to occupy the premises of the society. Hence, the learned Judge has rightly not exhibited these documents and while exercising discretion no error is committed by the Court below in any form. Hence, a well-reasoned order requires no interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the overall controversy generated in the present proceedings, it appears that before examining the order, the issue of exhibition of document is dealt with by a well-known judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra), is required to be kept in mind by the Court. Some of the observations contained in paragraphs No.12 to 16 since deserves consideration, which are reproduced hereinafter: “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 concerned parties to go before the higher courts for the purpose of challenging such interlocutory orders. 13. The worse part is that after passing the orders the trial court waited for days and weeks for the concerned parties 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 fall out 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 revisional court, when the same question is re-canvassed, 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 re-moulded 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. 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 re-canvassed 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. “ 6. In view of aforesaid observations what has been observed by the Court is that what practice is to be adopted whenever any objection is raised with regard to admissibility of material. Hence, the trial Court was expected to observe the aforesaid procedure which has been evolved by the Apex Court in the larger interest of adjudication of the main proceedings. Apart from that, order 13 of the C.P.C. is dealing with an issue related to production, impounding and return of the documents. A reading of this provision, clearly indicates that production of a document of any nature is not prohibited, but when those documents are resisted from its admissibility then how to deal with such eventuality is stipulated in the rules which are attached to Order 13 of the C.P.C. Hence, what has been found from the controversy involved in the order, it reveals that these documents are produced at various forum more than one occasion, and therefore, this is one of the reason from discarding the request. Furthermore, it has been found by the trial Court that these documents are not the office copies of Exh.85, but in any case even if these documents are not found to be from the forum of lavad suit then also when production is sought for and request is made for exhibiting the said documents, the learned Judge could have adopted the procedure which has been prescribed in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra). This ratio laid down by the Apex Court is so far not disturbed or deviated and even not been contended by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent. So this Court is of the opinion that at least the request of the petitioners could have been dealt with in the manner in which the Apex Court has propounded. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside with a consequential direction to the learned Judge to follow the procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra). Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be disposed of on the following line: (i) The impugned order dated 21.02.2019 is quashed and set aside with a consequential direction to reconsider the request of the petitioners and decide afresh in accordance with law after considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra). (ii) Since this decision has not at all referred to in the impugned order and since the matter is remanded back for reconsideration by the learned Judge below for taking afresh decision at exhibits No. 84 and 85 in the light of aforesaid situation, this Court has not express any opinion on merit and it is independently left it open for the learned Judge concerned to take appropriate decision in accordance with law after considering the decision of Apex Court referred to above. (iii) It is expected that the learned Judge should exercise such reconsideration as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court since the suit proceedings are of 2005. 7. With the above observations and directions, the present petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs.