L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 42 of 1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, aggrieved by the order dated 30. 7. 2004 in c. F. R. No. 557 of 2004.

( 2 ) PETITIONER filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Respondents filed their written statement. They could not file certain documents along with the written statement. Therefore, they filed LA. No. 27 of 2004 under Order VIII rule 1 (3) C. P. C. to receive the documents. The Trial Court ordered the same and received the documents. The petitioner filed a revision before this Court challenging the same, and the revision was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed. On behalf of the respondents, an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination was filed. In that, reference was made to various documents that were received by the Trial Court through its order dated 19. 2. 2004 in LA. No. 27 of 2004. The petitioner filed a memo dated 2. 7. 2004 taking objection to the reference to various documents in the affidavit filed by D. W. I, in lieu of his chief-examination. Through its order under revision, the Trial Court overruled the objections, and held that they can be considered at the time of cross-examination of D. W. I and not at a stage, earlier thereto.

( 4 ) SRI N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that several documents, referred to in the affidavit, filed in lieu of chief-examination of d. W. I, are, either inadmissible or nonexistent. By referring to the specific documents, he submits that in view of the subsequent orders passed by the revenue authorities, the documents such as pattadar pass books cannot be said to be in existence. He contends that if marking is given by the Trial Court for such documents, it would be difficult for eschewing them at a later point of time. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in r. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswami and V. P. Temple, AIR 2003 SC 4548 [LQ/SC/2003/1006] .

( 5 ) SRI M Janardhana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that mere receiving or giving mark to the documents is not final, particularly in the present scheme of the code of Civil Procedure and the objections raised by the petitioner can certainly be taken into account, at the time of cross examination of D. W. 1.

( 6 ) THE petitioner raised objections for reference of certain documents in the affidavit filed by D. W. 1 in lieu of his chief-examination. The objections range from the admissibility of documents, to the very existence of some of them. During the trial of the suit, the admissibility of the documents can be considered by the Court at three stages viz. , when the documents are filed into the Court, at the time of recording of evidence, in which the documents are introduced through witnesses, and at the stage of arguments. The nature of consideration by the Court in these three stages differs from each other. At the first stage, it would be on broad consideration, such as, whether the document is registered or whether it relates to the suit transaction. At the second stage, the consideration will be both (a) as to the admissibility, which takes in itself, the elements of relevancy, and, (b) as to proof. At the third stage, the Court is not entitled to re-open the question of proof. However, the question of admissibility can be considered. The law, on this aspect, was reviewed and enunciated by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounders case (supra).

( 7 ) A party to the suit cannot have any substantial grievance when the Court receives a particular document. Mere receiving of a document does not entail any adjudication as to its admissibility or proof. Before the Code of Civil procedure was amended, the questions as to admissibility and proof used to be considered during the course of chief-examination of a witness through whom the documents are introduced. In view of the amendment to the Code, a witness is entitled to file an affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination. In the affidavit, the documents, which he intends to rely upon, are invariably referred to. In such a case, there would not be any occasion either for the Court or for the opposite party to scrutinize the admissibility or proof of a document. This, however, does not mean that every document, which is referred to in the affidavit, has to be treated either as having been admitted or proved. The event, which hitherto, used to occur at the stage of chief-examination, stands relegated to the stage of cross-examination. During the course of cross-examination, the opposite party can certainly raise objections as to the admissibility or proof of any document. In such an event, the witness or the party, who intends to rely upon the document, may chose either to withdraw the document from the evidence, or to meet the objections that may have been raised by the opposite party. In such an event, only those documents, which survive the objections raised by the opposite party, can constitute the documentary evidence of the case, and not those in respect of which the objections are sustained. The result would be, notwithstanding the fact that the documents were referred to with a particular marking in the affidavit filed in lieu of the chief-examination, the Court has, invariably to exclude such of those documents, which are found either to be inadmissible or not proved. Consequently, a new numbering and marking needs to be assigned to the documents introduced through a witness and found to have been proved and admissible, at the conclusion of the cross-examination. Though not, in so many terms, the Trial court indicated such a course of action. Hence, no exception can be taken to the order under revision.

( 8 ) THE civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise objections as to the admissibility or proof of the documents relied upon by D. W. 1 during the course of his cross-examination.