This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 10-9-2001 in I.A.No. 1037 of 2001 in O.S.No.451 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad.

2. The Plaintiff, who is the petitioner in I.A.No. 1037 of 2001, is the revision petitioner. His case is that he filed the main suit for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, and that the same was contested by the defendants, who are the respondents herein. During the course of the evidence of the defendants, 151 defendant examined herself as D.W.1, and through him an agreement of sale was marked as Ex. B-2. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1037 of 2001 under Section 151 CPC to de-exhibit the document marked as Ex. B-2 on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated that the document in question being an agreement of sale coupled with delivery of possession should be on a stamp paper worth the value of the consideration mentioned in the agreement, and registration of such document is mandatory. It is contended that Ex. B-2 was not sufficiently stamped and also not registered. However, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court, and consequently marking of the said document is totally unlawful and illegal. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought to de-exhibit the said document. The defendants opposed the said application. In the counter they denied the allegations made by the plaintiff and pleaded for dismissal of the petition.

3. The Court below, on consideration of the rival contentions, by order, dated 10-9-2001, dismissed the application by the following order:

"Heard both sides and perused the petition affidavit and the document Ex. B-2. Admittedly the agreement of sale was executed prior to 1995 on a Rs.50/- stamp. As such no stamp duty is required to be paid on the sale consideration by them and no registration is required. Moreover, in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff/petitioner the document marked on defendants side an agreement of sale may incidentally be gone through and it does not form basis to consider the title.

Hence, petition is dismissed. No costs."

4. Questioning the correctness of the said order, plaintiff has come up with the present civil revision petition.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served and the matter underwent several adjournments, there is no representation for the respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the conclusion of the Court below that Ex. B-2 does not require registration and that no stamp duty is required to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in it is erroneous. According to the learned Counsel, Ex. B-2 requires stamp duty on the consideration mentioned thereunder and it also requires registration and therefore, the Court below ought to have rejected it holding that the same is inadmissible in evidence.

7. Admittedly, petitioner-plaintiff failed to raise any objection at the time of marking the document on behalf of the defendants and consequently, the document in question was marked as Ex. B-2. The material on record shows that the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and EX.B-2 was marked through her on 2-8-2001. Thereafter she was cross~ examined on 13-8-2001, 19-10-2001 and 27-11-2001. It appears that during the cross-examination of D.W.1, the application in question was filed on 3-9-2001 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to de-exhibit Ex. B-1.

8. It is settled principle of law that once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, there cannot be any challenge as to its admissibility subsequently. In this context, it is necessary to extract Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which runs as follows:

"36. Admission of instrument where not to be questioned:- Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called