JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)- III, Gumla by which learned trial Court in Title Suit No.17/2014 has admitted into the evidence the list of documents 1–35 as set out in the order and marked it as exhibits. 2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of defendant no.8/petitioner that out of 35 documents, those at serial nos.2, 3 11, 14, 16, 27, 34 & 35 are private documents, cannot be proved by their certified copy without the formal proof of it. A specific reference is made to that at serial nos.2, 11, 14, 27, 34 & 35 that they are the petitions filed by the plaintiffs. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of plaintiffs/opposite parties defends the impugned order. 4. The general rule is that documents must be proved by primary evidence, mainly the original document itself or the secondary evidence in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Certified copies of public documents are admissible into evidence as proof of the original, and the formal proof is dispensed with of such document. Section 76 of the Evidence Act provides that every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give the person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at foot of such copy that it is true copy of such document or part thereof. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh , (2001) 6 SCC 254 that a sale deed can be proved by production of certified copy of the said deed without its formal proof. 5. So far mode of proof of a document is concerned, the same can be raised at the time, the documents is produced into evidence before the learned trial Court and in the event of such objection, it will be marked as exhibit with objection. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in This extract is taken from Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat , (2001) 3 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 417 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 445 at page 5 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in This extract is taken from Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat , (2001) 3 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 417 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 445 at page 5 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 6. In the present case, it appears that some objections have been raised regarding the mode of proof and I do not find any infirmity that the documents have been marked into exhibit. Objection, if any, raised with regard to its admissibility or effect by the defendants, can be considered at the final stage of argument. Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.