Evidence objections should usually be recorded and decided later; orders shutting out evidence are not merely interlocutory.

Objections to the admissibility of oral or documentary evidence should ordinarily be noted while the evidence is recorded, with the admissibility question left for decision at the final stage, so that trial is not interrupted and the record remains available for appellate scrutiny. An order that closes a witness's evidence and excludes material from the record is not a mere interlocutory step because it finally affects the parties' rights and the course of the proceedings. The text states that such an order is amenable to revision, and that the trial court should resume the witness's evidence and decide objections in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether objections to admissibility of oral or documentary evidence should be decided immediately during recording of evidence or deferred till the final judgment; (ii) whether the order closing the evidence of the witness and refusing to take the material on record could be treated as an interlocutory order.

Issue (i): Whether objections to admissibility of oral or documentary evidence should be decided immediately during recording of evidence or deferred till the final judgment.

Analysis: The proper course is to record the evidence and note the objection, leaving the question of admissibility to be decided at the final stage. This avoids interruption of trial, prevents unnecessary remand, and preserves the material on record for appellate or revisional scrutiny. The procedure is consistent with the Evidence Act and with the direction that trial courts should not halt evidence-taking merely because an objection is raised.

Conclusion: The objection to admissibility was not required to be decided then and there, and the witness ought to have been allowed to continue her deposition, with the objection kept open for decision at the end.

Issue (ii): Whether the order closing the evidence of the witness and refusing to take the material on record could be treated as an interlocutory order.

Analysis: An order that finally affects the prosecution by shutting out evidence and terminating the examination of a witness goes to the root of the proceedings and affects the rights of the parties. Such an order is not a mere interlocutory step, and revision is maintainable against it.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not interlocutory in nature and was amenable to revision.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to resume the witness's evidence and decide objections in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: When an objection to admissibility of evidence is raised during trial, the evidence should ordinarily be recorded subject to objection and the objection decided in the final judgment, and an order that conclusively shuts out evidence and affects the parties' substantive rights is not merely interlocutory.

---