JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.7.2018, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), vide which the petitioner's application dated 15.1.2018 has been rejected. 2. Succinctly stated the facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants-respondents herein. During the course of proceedings, the defendants filed their affidavits in evidence and while making assertion about certain documents, filed such documents and marked exhibits thereupon. 3. The petitioner filed an application on 15.1.2018 and prayed that Exhibits A/7 to A/33 marked on the documents and in the affidavits be scored out or struck off. 4. Learned trial Court decided petitioner's aforesaid application, vide its order dated 06.07.2018 inter alia observing that the objection regarding admissibility of the document is yet to be decided and merely because documents have been marked as Exhibits in the body of affidavits, it cannot be said that the documents have been exhibited. 5. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant excerpts of the order dated 06.07.2018 passed by learned trial Court:- ^^mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa ds lanHkZ esa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izfroknh ve`ryky ds 'kiFk i= esa izn'kZ ,&7 ls izn'kZ ,&33 esa vafdr nLrkostksa dks 'kiFk i= ls gVkus ds laca/k esa okfn;k dh vksj ls tks gLrxr izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k x;k gS] mlds laca/k esa U;k;ky; dk ;gh fouez er gS fd izfroknh ve`ryky dk 'kiFk i= ;fn izn'kZ vafdr djrs gq, rS;kj fd;k x;k gS rks 'kiFk i= esa izn'kZ vafdr dj nsus ek= ls nLrkostkr ij Hkh izn'kZ vafdr fd;s tkus dk vf/kdkj izfroknh dks izkIr ugha gks tkrkA nLrkostkr ij izn'kZ U;k;ky; dh vuqefr mijkUr gh Mkys tk ldrs gSA vr% Áfroknh dks mlds 'kiFk i= ls Án'kZ gVk;s tkus ds vkns'k iznku djus ;k la'kksf/kr 'kiFk i= is'k djus ds laca/k esa vkns'k fn;k tkuk vko';d o mfpr ugha gksrk gSA vr% okfn;k dh vksj ls is'k izkFkZuk i= ckcr~ izfroknh ve`ryky ds 'kiFk i= ls izn'kZ ,&7 ls izn'kZ ,&33 gsrq gVkus dk Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gksus ls vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order dated 06.07.2018, passed by learned trial Court contended that the documents filed by the defendants along with their affidavits were not admissible in evidence and hence permitting marking of exhibits upon such documents was not correct and it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have allowed the petitioner's application and remove/delete marking of the exhibits on the contentious documents. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the defendants have led their evidence by way of affidavits. It is known to all that evidence by way of affidavits has been introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, vide its amendment in the year 2002 pursuant to substitution of Rule 4 of Order XVIII. The marking of exhibits or not permitting a party to mark exhibits was relevant, when the oral evidence used to be tendered by the parties and it was only at the time of marking exhibits while recording the statement, that such objection regarding admissibility of the document was required to be raised. 9. However, in the present scenario as the evidence is to be led by way of affidavit, it is natural that while furnishing the affidavit in evidence, the concerned party would make reference of the documents while reflecting the relevant documents as exhibits. 10. In this regard, a reading of Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is imperative, for which the same is being reproduced hereunder:- "O.XVIII Rule 4. Recording of evidence.-(1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who called him for evidence; Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed alongwith affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court. (2) the evidence (cross-examination and re-examination) of the witness in attendance, whose evidence (examination-in-chief) by affidavit has been furnished to the Court shall be taken either by the Court or by the Commissioner appointed by it:" xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. (2) the evidence (cross-examination and re-examination) of the witness in attendance, whose evidence (examination-in-chief) by affidavit has been furnished to the Court shall be taken either by the Court or by the Commissioner appointed by it:" xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. A perusal of proviso appended with Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly suggests that if the documents have been filed along with the affidavit, the proof and admissibility of the documents) shall be subject to the orders of the Court. 12. Hence, merely because a document has been filed along with the affidavit and exhibit has been marked thereupon, it will not ipso-facto render such document admissible in evidence and the same shall remain subject to just objections to be taken by the concerned party and/or orders passed by the Court in this regard. 13. Needless to observe that Rule 4 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the Amendment Act of 2002, essentially with a view to provide recording of evidence by way of affidavits to facilitate speedy and efficient completion of evidence. By the said amendment, the Parliament has also provided for filing of the documents along with the affidavit. 14. Though not directly involved in the present case but as this Court is confronted with various peripheral issues, as a note of caution, it is observed that Order XVTII of the Code is a provision independent of provisions contained in Order VII Rule 14 and Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code. Hence, any document filed along with the affidavit does not require a separate application for bringing those documents on record, of course when original/photostat copy thereof has been filed with plaint or written statement, as the case may be. A party may produce original or other documents and mark exhibit upon them alongwith the affidavit in evidence. No separate application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code or Order VIA Rule 1 of the Code, is necessary, if those documents have been mentioned in the pleadings and list thereof has been enclosed. 15. After filing of the affidavit, when the witness comes for cross examination/re-examination, the marking of the exhibit on the document afresh is to be done by the Court/parties. 15. After filing of the affidavit, when the witness comes for cross examination/re-examination, the marking of the exhibit on the document afresh is to be done by the Court/parties. It is at this stage, the document shall be deemed to have been tendered in evidence and it is at this juncture, objection, if any, about the stamp duty, registration and admissibility etc. is required to be taken and decided by the Court. 16. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner's application under consideration clearly turns out to be misconceived. According to me, the trial Court has committed no error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. 17. Needless to observe that it shall always be open for the petitioner to raise objection regarding admissibility etc. regarding the documents), which has been filed along with the affidavit and the trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law. 18. As a natural corollary of dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application No. 12176/2018 also stands dismissed.