bc taken when the evidence is tendered and oncc the clocurlent has been admitled in evidcnce an(l nr:rked as an cxhibit, the objection that it should not ha\c bccn adrnittcd in evidence or that thc rnotle atloptctl fbr ploving the document is irresular cannot hc allou,ecl to be raised at any stage subsccplcnt t() tllc marking of the document as an exhibit.'llre lultcr 1rro1'rositionis a rule of thir play. 'f hc crucial tcst i: rvhethel an objection, if taken at the appropriate point o1'tinre, would have enabled the party tenclcrins tlrc cviclence to cure the defect and resort to suclr uroclc ol' prool' as,'vould be regular. The onrission to ob.icct becomes tatal becausc by his lailurc the plrlr'cr)iirlc(l to objcct allows the party tendering the evitlcrrcc to irct o11 an assumption that the opposite Prltv i: not icrir)Lrs rbout the rnode of proof. On the othcr hanrl. r pr-onrr.rr objection does not prejudice the palt1, terrdcring tlre cvidcnce, for two reasons: firstly, it cnablcs tlle c()r.rrt to apply its mind and pronounce its <lecision on tircquestion ol admissibility then and tlrcre: antl sccorrtll)'. in thc event of hnding of the courl on thc nrlrtlc ol' proot'sought to be adopted going agairrst the purtl tenclcring the evidence, the opportunitv ol' seckins incl:lqcnce of the court for permittinrr a rcstrlar rnotlc or method of proof and therebv renror ing tlre ob.iection raised by the opposite party, is available lo the party lcading the evidence. Such lrrircticc unrl proceclurc is fair to both the pafiics. Out o f' the t\'o tylrcs of objections, referred to hereinabovc. in llre latlel case, failure to raise a pr()nrpt artl tinrclv ob-jection amounts to waiver o[' thc rrcccssitv lirr insisting on formal proof of a documcnt. thc rloeunrerrt itsell (2003) 8 SCC 752 which is s()usht to he provcd be irrs admissible in evidencc........." lcnrplrasis irr o rieina I )
