( 1 ) IN this revision petition, which has been filed by the plaintiffs, the crucial question to be decided is that if a document tendered in evidence is marked as "subject to objection" on the ground of deficient stamp duty, whether the Court can subsequently directed for deficit stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (in short the 'act' ).

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit in O. S. No. 6674/98 on the file of the 5th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. This suit has been filed for a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Lawfulness of his possession over the property was sought to be justified by the plaintiffs on the basis of a contract for sale dated 28-2-1997. The plaintiff/petitioner tendered this document as an evidence but its admissibility was objected by the defendants on the ground that it was not duly stamped. The Court marked the document as Ex. P. 2 subject to objections by the defendants. Subsequently, the Court took up the issue regarding admissibility of the document and passed the impugned order dated 28-3-2000 holding that the document was not duly stamped and therefore the plaintiff should pay deficit stamp duty with penalty.

( 3 ) SRI G. S. Vishweswar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has assailed the validity of the impugned order by raising the plea that once the document is marked as exhibit, it should be deemed to have been admitted and as such in view of Section 35 of the Act, neither its admissibility can be questioned at a subsequent stage nor the Court can direct for paying the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655.

( 4 ) SECTION 34 of the Act declares that instruments not duly stamped are inadmissible in evidence subject to exceptions provided therein. This section to the extent it is relevant for the present case reads as under :- "section 34. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.- No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped : provided that - (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding fifteen naya paise only, or a mortgage of crop Art. 35 (a) of the Schedule chargeable under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3 with a duty of twenty five paise shall, subject to all just exceptions be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, even ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion hereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion; (b) to (d) ***

( 5 ) SECTION 35 of the Act prohibits questioning of instrument which has been admitted in evidence. It reads thus :- section 35. 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 58, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.

( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to Rules 4 (1) and 6 of Order XIII of CPC which read as under :- order XIII.- Productions, Impounding and Returns of Documents rule 4. Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence.- (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars namely :- (A) the number and title of the suit, (b) the name of t