This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, feeling aggrieved by the docket order, dated 15.07.2011, in the said suit, whereby the learned Judge has refused to mark the document, dated 22.04.2005, in evidence on the ground that the same is insufficiently stamped promissory note and hence, not admissible even after payment of required stamp duty and penalty.

The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.2,32,603/-from the respondent on the foot of a document, dated 22.04.2005. When he has filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and filed the said document along with the affidavit, the lower Court has made the following endorsement:

“As per Sch.I of Art.49(9)(iii) of A.P.Stamp Act, 1899, in promissory note which exceeds Rs.1,000/-, the required stamp duty is Rs.0.25 ps which is equivalent to Rs.3/-and (10) times penalty is Rs.30/-. Thus, the total amount impounded is Rs.33/-which has been collected on 06.02.2008 through lodgement.”

In compliance with the above-noted direction of the lower Court, the petitioner has paid stamp duty and penalty and the document was accordingly impounded. Subsequently, when the petitioner entered the witness box for marking the documents, an objection was taken by the respondent that the promissory note is not admissible in evidence even after it was impounded. The petitioner, however, pleaded that the document was not a promissory note, but the same is only a receipt which can be admitted in evidence. The lower Court by its docket order, dated 15.07.2011, declined to admit the document on the ground that as the nature of the document was already determined by endorsement, dated 06.02.2008, which has become final, the petitioner cannot be allowed to plead that the same is a receipt and not a promissory note.

I have heard Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the respondent.

With the amendment of Order XVIII of CPC w.e.f., 01.07.2002, a new procedure has come into vogue with regard to recording of evidence. As per the amended provisions, examination-in-chief of a witness shall be by way of an affidavit and proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Order XVIII which was substituted by the above-mentioned amendment envisages that where documents are filed along with the chief affidavit and the parties rely upon the same, the proof and admissibility of such documents shall be subject to the orders of the Court.

It is not in dispute that when the document was produced along with the chief affidavit, the lower Court has not heard the petitioner’s counsel on the nature of the document. The lower Court has evidently concluded unilaterally that the document is in the nature of a promissory note. However, when the said document was sought to be marked at the time of the petitioner entering into the witness box, the issue as to its nature has arisen on the objection having been taken by the respondents’ counsel.

In my opinion, unless both the parties are put on notice and the Court hears them on the admissibility of a document, mere unilateral conclusion arrived at by the Court at the time of presentation of the document along with the chief affidavit will not bind the parties.

In Ram Rattan v. Barang Lal (1978) 3 SCC 236, the Supreme Court held that when the document was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box, objection having been raised by the defendants that the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped and for want of registration, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to apply its mind to the objection raised and to decide the objection in accordance with law. A case of similar nature arose before the Bombay High Court in Saifuddin Saheblal Vazir v. Smt.Habjabai Mishra Patel and another AIR 2003 BOMBAY 36. The Bombay High Court has delved into the amended provisions of Rule 4 of Order