Admissibility objections to documents must be decided immediately, not deferred to final arguments; contrary orders may be revised.

When an objection to the admissibility of a document is raised during cross-examination, including objections based on stamping or registration, the court must decide it immediately and cannot merely tentatively mark the document and defer the issue until final arguments. A procedural order postponing that determination is an error and is amenable to correction in revision. The material states that the earlier authority did not approve deferral of the objection, while the later authority required an immediate decision. The result was that the revision was allowed and the trial court was directed to decide admissibility forthwith and proceed with the suit expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court was bound to decide forthwith the admissibility of documents objected to during cross-examination, and whether its failure to do so justified interference in revision.

Analysis: An objection to the admissibility of a document, including objections based on stamping or registration, must be decided when raised. Tentatively marking the document and postponing the decision until final arguments is not a proper procedure. The earlier decision relied on by the trial court did not approve such a course, while the later decision directly held that the objection must be decided at once. An order adopting the contrary procedure is liable to be corrected in revision.

Conclusion: The trial court was required to determine the admissibility of the documents immediately, and its failure to do so amounted to an error warranting revision under Section 115(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the trial court was directed to decide the admissibility question forthwith and proceed with the suit expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: When an objection to a document's admissibility is raised, the court must decide that objection at once and cannot reserve the issue for final arguments; a contrary procedural order is amenable to revision.

---