( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was brought on an insufficiently stamped promissory note which was for this reason rcjected by the Courts below and the suit was dismissed. The question is whether having regard to the provisions of section 36 of the Stamp Act, the Courts below were right in rejecting the promissory note ; in other words, whether the promissory note had not already been admitted in evidence. The Courts below were of the opinion that the stage had not been reached at which the admissibility of the promissory note could not be questioned. Section 36 of the Stamp act prohibits the rejection of a document once it has been admitted in evidence even in a subsequent stage of the same suit and it is clear that under this section, objection could not be taken when there had been such admission. If a promissory note had in fact been admitted in evidence, though in disregard of the provisions of section 35, it will be available as evidence in that proceeding for all pruposes as if it had been properly stamped at the outset. This is the effect of section 36 and the section would apply even where, as in the present case the document is the fou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document