( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of india aggrieved by the order dated 28-3-2007 passed by the Court of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in marking Ex. A. 3 document in evidence subject to objection in O. S. No. 916 of 2005.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of money. During the trial, when the document in question was tendered in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendants raised an objection stating that the said document was not a promissory note but only a bond and since the same was not sufficiently stamped, it cannot be admitted in evidence. The Court below having taken note of the objection, marked the said document as Ex. A. 3 subject to objection. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed contending inter alia that the Court below ought not to have marked the document subject to objection without deciding as to whether the said document is properly stamped or not.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.

( 4 ) AS per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose or shall be acted upon unless the same is duly stamped. In the case on hand, the defendants contended that the document sought to be marked as Ex. A. 3 was not a promissory note but a bond changeable with duty as contained in Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Indian stamp Act.

( 5 ) I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when such an objection is raised as to the deficiency of the Stamp Duty of the document, the Court is bound to decide the objection before proceeding further. It is true that during the evidence of a witness whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any document it is open to the trial court to make a note of such objection and mark the document tentatively as an exhibit subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. Subsequently, if the court finds at the final stage that the

objection so raised is sustainable, such evidence can be excluded from consideration. Adopting such a course is not illegal.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, as held by the Supreme Court in bipin SHANTILAL PANCHAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER, (2001) 3 SCC 5 if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further.

( 7 ) IN view of the well settled legal position, I am of the opinion that the court below committed an error in not recording a finding as to the objection raised by the defendants and marking Ex. A. 3 in evidence subject to objection. Accordingly, the order of the Court below to the extent of marking Ex. A. 3 i. e. , in O. S. No. 916 of 2005 is set aside and the Revision Petition is allowed with a direction to the Court below to consider the objection raised by the petitioner and record a finding thereon following due process of law and thereafter proceed with the suit. No costs.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document