JUDGMENT : (V. SRINIVAS, J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Order of dismissal and decree dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned VIII Additional District Judge at Rajamahendravaram in I.A.No.461 of 2022 in SOP No.5 of 2022 filed by the petitioner seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and their men, followers from ever alienating the petition schedule property of 1 st respondent Society pending disposal of the main SOP. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: i. The United Christ’s Church in India had appointed six committee members for the 1st respondent Society was known as “Bethel Grace Orphanage” and the same was registered under the Societies Registration Act vide Registration No.109 on 02.08.1972. Later with the permission of the Educational Officer, East Godavari at Kakinada, the 1 st respondent society opened Bethel Grace Residential Upper Primary School in the year, 1972 and got reorganization being renewal. The Andhra Pradesh Government Education Department has upgraded the 1 st respondent society as Bethel Grace Residential High School in the year, 1983-84. ii. The Executive Counsel of United Christ’s Church in India appointed seven executive members, some members from old committee and some new members, to get separate registration of Bethel Grace Residential High School with a better view to make it as fully Charitable Organization from the concerned authorities, so as to do more charitable social service to the poor and needy. iii. The office bearers of the Executive Committee of Bethel Grace Residential High School shall be the president, vice-president, secretary, correspondent and four executive members to conduct the affairs of the organization. iv. One Posupo Rebacamma, W/o.Moody Bob Jones was acted as President and her husband Posupo Moody Bob Jones was acted as Secretary and Correspondent for the 1st respondent society and he managed the affairs of the society till his death. During life time of said Posupo Moody Bob Jones as Secretary and Correspondent for the 1st respondent society purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in RS No.552/1 situated in Sambhunagar, 8 th street, Rajahmundry from Vallepalli Lakshmana Rao under registered sale deed with a document No.7292/1982. During life time of said Posupo Moody Bob Jones as Secretary and Correspondent for the 1st respondent society purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in RS No.552/1 situated in Sambhunagar, 8 th street, Rajahmundry from Vallepalli Lakshmana Rao under registered sale deed with a document No.7292/1982. v. After assuming the office of 1 st respondent society by the present executive committee, the 2 nd respondent by name Posupo Charles Sparzen Bob being President misused the funds of the society and utilizing the same for his own purpose without rendering the proper accounts. Whenever the Executive Members questioned him, he used to give evasive answers. vi. The petitioner, who is Member of the committee and Administrative Officer, came to know that the 2nd respondent being president is trying to alienate the schedule property to respondent Nos.7 to 15 in collusion with other committee members of 1st respondent society for which he has no right to do so. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 are making hectic efforts to sell away the schedule property to respondent Nos.7 to 15 or to 3 rd parties. Hence, the petition. 3. The respondent No.2 filed counter, which was adopted by the respondent Nos.1, 7 to 12, denied the case of the petitioner and pleaded that: i. The schedule property is not existing and the same is shown wrongly. The society sold Ac.0.87 cents out of Ac.2.00 cents to Posupo Rebacamma in terms of sale deed dated 30.04.1986 registered as document No.4007/1986 in SRO Rajahmundry. The same was done to the knowledge of one and all including the petitioner. ii. One Posupo Nireekshana and two others being heirs of James Moody i.e., brother of the petitioner filed suit for partition in O.S.No.45 of 2021 before the Court of learned I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry for partition of Ac.0.87 cents as heirs of said Rebacamma. The petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant and initially she did not contest the suit and remained exparte, later made an application along with written statement. iii. The petitioner along with Debora Emilia Jones and Posupo Ruth Deboira Jones filed a suit in O.S.No.30 of 2022 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional District Judge at Rajamahendravaram against the 2 nd respondent, Posupo Nireekshana, Posupo Ricard Moody and Posupo Rebacca Jones for partition of Ac.1.13 cents in RS No.552/1 together building bearing D.no.2-58-10. iii. The petitioner along with Debora Emilia Jones and Posupo Ruth Deboira Jones filed a suit in O.S.No.30 of 2022 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional District Judge at Rajamahendravaram against the 2 nd respondent, Posupo Nireekshana, Posupo Ricard Moody and Posupo Rebacca Jones for partition of Ac.1.13 cents in RS No.552/1 together building bearing D.no.2-58-10. The said Ac.1.13 cents is part of partition schedule property after deducting Ac.0.87 cents sold to P.Rebacamma. The petitioner herein as 2 nd plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2022 has knowledge about the sale of Ac.0.87 cents and suit for partition regarding remaining extent of Ac.1.13 cents. The petitioner is not a member of the society and as such, she cannot be Administrative Officer of the said Society. iv. Suit in O.S.No.20 of 2000 on the file of the Court of learned Principal District Judge at Rajahmundry was filed by Chitturi Bulli Rani and others for recovery of money against the 1 st respondent and at that time 548.88 sq.yards + 548.88 sq.yards were sold to respondent Nos.7 and 8 by the society in terms of 2 nd separate sale deed dated 04.12.014 to satisfy the decree passed in O.S.No.20 of 2000. The petitioner has knowledge about the same. v. The 1 st respondent society made several sales for necessary funds for running the society. The respondent Nos.7 and 8 and their son are the bonafide purchasers of land sold by the society. vi. The 1 st respondent society leased out the entire Ac.1.13 cents and building there to Sri Harshavardhana Educational Society for running school in the year, 2014 itself. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 4. During enquiry before the Trial Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on either side. 5. On merits, the Trial Court had dismissed the petition with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner before the Trial Court filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is the specific case of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has no authority to meddle with the affairs of the society as member of the committee and administrative officer. To that extent, they filed a document before the Trial Court along with registered sale deeds under which the respondent Nos.7 and 8 said to be purchased the property as bonafide purchasers. To that extent, they filed a document before the Trial Court along with registered sale deeds under which the respondent Nos.7 and 8 said to be purchased the property as bonafide purchasers. But the same are not available before this Court to appreciate the case of the respondents since they were not marked as exhibits by the Trial Court at the time of enquiry. 8. The Trial Court gave categorical finding that “the registered deeds filed in relied upon by them in the main petition the extent of schedule property Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.552/1 and building therein bearing Dr.No.2-58-10 with specific boundaries shown thereunder as in serious dispute. As there is serious dispute with regard to locus standi of petitioner to file the petition and also the actual extent in respect of schedule property on ground is not in existence as that of the extent shown in the petition schedule and further the registered sale deed pressed into by both respective parties to the petition showing some of the extent out of the total extent of schedule property already sold and the remaining extent was under lease.” 9. But the above said documents are not available with this Court and they were not marked as exhibits by the Trial Court. The Rule 70 of the Civil Rules of Practice says that the enquiry into an interlocutory application shall be conducted by receiving affidavits, but if the learned Judge concerned directs that the evidence be given orally, then it shall be recorded and the exhibits be marked in the same manner as in the case of suits. 10. Now., it is relevant to refer the categorical observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in A.P.Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. M/s.Trimex Minerals Pvt.Ltd. , [11998 (1) ALT 182 (D.B.)] , that: “Before closing the case, we must point out that there was considerable difficulty for us in knowing which documents were filed before the trial Court. This could have been avoided if exhibit numbers with ’P’ & ’R’ series are assigned to the documents filed and their brief description is indicated in index. This could have been avoided if exhibit numbers with ’P’ & ’R’ series are assigned to the documents filed and their brief description is indicated in index. This practice was being followed by the trial Courts until the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in G. Sambrajyam v. P. Maha Lakshmamma and others, 1995 (1) ALD 358 , wherein his Lordship observed that neither the Civil Rules of Practice (framed by the High Court) nor the provisions of CPC contemplate marking of documents in an interlocutory application. May be, the rules are silent; but, "it does not mean that marking of documents for the convenience of the parties and the Court, is prohibited or barred. In our view, there need not be express conferment of power in this behalf. The Court has inherent or incidental power to modulate the procedure not specifically laid down by the rules in an appropriate manner to promote general convenience and to facilitate easy reference. To avoid any confusion, the documents tentatively marked at the IA stage can be renumbered at the stage of trial of suit with ’A’ & ’B’ series, as is being done now, if they are proved or admitted in evidence. It is true that IAs cannot be enquired into a suits. But, it is far from saying that the documents referred to in the course of arguments or filed with the pleadings ought not to be indicated with appropriate serial numbers at the end of the order. Respectfully disagreeing with the view taken by the learned Judge, we hold that it is desirable to restore the old practice and procedure.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the present case on hand, as stated supra, no doubt the Trial Court did not exhibit any of the documents, which are material, available on record to appreciate the case in an effective manner by this Court. 12. Furthermore, it is also relevant to refer the observations of Division Bench of this Court in T.Bhopal Reddy v. K.R. Lakshmi Bai , 1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB) , which are as follows: “16. As stated earlier, we are quite conscious of the fact that the documents marked for purpose of determination of any interlocutory application cannot be treated as evidence per se but would enable the Court to prima facie come to a conclusion about the merits or demerits of the contentions advanced. As stated earlier, we are quite conscious of the fact that the documents marked for purpose of determination of any interlocutory application cannot be treated as evidence per se but would enable the Court to prima facie come to a conclusion about the merits or demerits of the contentions advanced. For the reasons aforesaid, we disapprove the view taken by Mr.Justice Somasekhara in the case referred to supra insofar as marking of the documents in the interlocutory applications. 17. Further, in order to avoid any future difficulties, it is desirable to incorporate a rule in Civil Rules of Practice for giving a separate marking to the documents relied upon by either party in interlocutory proceedings by directing the trial Courts to mark such of the documents relied upon by the petitioners in the interlocutory applications as ‘P’ series and the documents relied upon by the respondents as ‘R’ series to avoid any difficulty in identifying the documents at a later stage of the proceedings and also during trial.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Having regarding to the above discussion and in view of the categorical observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter can be remanded to the Trial Court to mark the material documents produced by the parties and then appreciate the matter afresh under Order 41 Rule 23A of C.P.C. and the Trial Court shall dispose of the interlocutory application within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment as envisaged under Order 39 Rule 3(3A) of C.P.C. and submit the compliance before this Court. 14. With the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 21.12.2022 in I.A.No.461 of 2022 in SOP No.5 of 2022 on the file of the Court of learned VIII Additional District Judge at Rajamahendavaram. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Trial Court to appreciate the same afresh by marking the material documents produced by the parties, the Trial Court shall dispose of the interlocutory application within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment as envisaged under Order 39 Rule 3(3A) of C.P.C. and submit the compliance before this Court. Both parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court for disposal of the said application within the period prescribed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.