1. The plaintiff in S.C. No. 66 of 1958 of the Munsiff's Court of Irinjalakuda is the petitioner before us. That court refused to evaluate the evidence in the light of Ext. P1 on the ground that it was not duly stamped and dismissed the suit without taking it into consideration.

2. It is common ground that Ext. P1 should have been stamped as a promissory note and that it is defective on that account. The only contention of the petitioner is that the instrument having been admitted in evidence its admissibility cannot be challenged at a later stage.

3. The instrument was proved and marked when the petitioner was examined as P. W.1 on 11-6-1959. It was also used in the cross-examination of the respondent when he gave evidence as D.W.1 on the same date. The admissibility was questioned for the first time only by I. A. No. 1831 of 1959, a petition filed by the respondent on 20-6-1959.

4. The contention of the petitioner is based on S.38 of the Travancore-Cochin Stamp Act, 1125, which provided that:

"Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence or registered, such admission or registration shall not, except as provided in S.63 and 64, be called in question on the ground tha