Once a document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be rejected at a subsequent stage of the same suit, even if the court did not apply its mind to the question of admissibility at the time it was admitted.

( 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 foundation of the suit: Lakshmappa v. Masood Sahib, (1934) 67 M. L. J. 539. Venkara Reddi v. Hussain Setti. (1933) 66 M. L. J. 709 : I. L. R. 57 Mad. 779 section 36 would apply even though the document had been wrongly admitted or admitted without objection. The object of the Stamp Act is to provide revenue for the State and not to arm a litigant with a weapon of defence and section 36 proceeds on that basis. If the objection as to the defective stamping is not taken or is overruled and the document is admitted in evidence, the matter stops there and neither the parties nor the Court can thereafter agitate the question of its admissibility. The trial Court which admits the document, as well as the appellate and revisional Courts are all bound to act upon the document once it has been admitted in evidence as pointed out in Alagappa Chetti v. Narayanan Chsttiar, (1932) 63 M. L. J. 548. and Lakshmappa v. Masood Sahib. , (1934) 67 M. L. J. 539.

( 2 ) THE provisions of Order 13, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, empowering the Court to reject at any stage of the suit any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, is subject to the provisions of section 36 of the Stamp Act. See Satyavathi v. Pullaiah. , A. I. R. 1937 Mad. 431. The crucial question is, whether in the circumstances of the case, there has been an " admission " of the promissory note in evidence within the meaning of section 36 of the Stamp Act. The promissory note was produced along with the plaint and filed into Court on 19th January, 1951. The objection was taken in the written statement to the validity of the promissory note and an issue was framed in these terms :- "whether the suit promissory note is not true, valid and binding on the defendant?" the trial began on 4th September, 1951 and on that date the defendant s pleader put in a memo. , stating that he did not question the genuineness of the promissory note but questioned its validity. The plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1 and in the course of his evidence, the promissory note was put to him and he proved it. The promissory note was thereupon marked as Exhibit A-1 in the case. I have looked into the document and find that it bears the following endorsement :-" In the Court of the District Munsif of Ongole. O. S. No. 31 of 1951. Produced by the plaintiff on 19th January, 1951. Proved by P. W. 1, 4th September, 1951. Marked as Ex. A-1. "

( 3 ) THERE are the initials of the District Munsif " P. A. R. " below these entries in his own handwriting. The usual appendix of evidence attached to the judgment contains the following entry :- " Documents marked for plaintiff. Ex. A-1. 12-9-1948. Suit pronote executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. " the effect of the entries on the document has to be understood in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document