Once a document is admitted in evidence, the court has no jurisdiction to reject it on the ground that it was not duly stamped at any later stage of the suit, as per Section 36 of the Stamp Act.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam rejecting a document, Ex. G, in the case as inadmissible on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped in supersession of a prior order admitting it on 7th September 1934. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 26 of 1933 for recovery of certain sums of money due to them from defendants 1 to 3 in the case. It was their case that this matter was referred to arbitration and that the arbitrator was also inquiring into the claims relating to the partition between defendants 1 to 3. He delivered an award on 12th April 1930 in and by which he decreed certain sums as payable by defendants 1 to 3 and the claim was based on the award. In the written statement filed by defendant 1 it was not alleged that the document was insufficiently stamped, and that the suit cannot be based thereon. When P.W. 1 was being examined objection was taken to its admissibility. It is the case of defendant 2 and I think it is also the case of the other defendants, that this specific objection as to insufficiency of stamp was taken along with the objection regarding want of registration. In a way this is also supported by the plaintiffs, but the learned Judge overruled the objection of the defendants and admitted it by marking it as Ex. G, and his order runs as follows:

Exhibit G is a copy of the award engrossed on stamp paper. It is the case for plaintiffs that the original award engrossed upon a stamped paper was stolen fraudulently by defendant 2 and that it could not be registered on account of the fraud committed by defendant 2. Moreover the award so far as these plaintiffs are concerned relates to moveable properties. Objection is therefore overruled.

2. It does not appear from the order whether the learned Judge was overruling both the objections, namely, the objection as to insufficiency of stamp and the objection as to registration. But the learned Judge in spite of what the parties have stated says in his judgment that so far as his recollection goes he did not deal with the question of the objection relating to insufficiency of stamp. The question is, has he got jurisdiction to upset the order already passed by him? According to the plain language of Section 36, Stamp Act, once a document is admitted by the Court in evidence it has no jurisdiction to reject it on the ground that it was not duly stamped at any later stage of the suit. As observed by Rankin, C.J. in Nirode Basini v. Sital Chandra AIR1930Cal577. Under Section 36 it matters nothing whether it was wrongly admitted or rightly admitted or admitted without objection or after hearing or without hearing such objection.

3. It is also the view taken in Jagdip Singh v. Firangi Singh AIR1928Pat155 . In our High Court Madhavan Nair, J. took this view. In the case which is reported in Venkateswara Iyer v. Ramanatha Deekshitar AIR1929Mad622 , a suit was filed upon a promissory note which was insufficiently stamped. Objection was taken in the written statement that it was insufficiently stamped, but no issue was framed on that matter and the document was admitted in evidence. In the appeal the Subordinate Judge raised an issue and decided the matter adversely to the plaintiff. In revision the learned Judge, Madhavan Nair, set aside the order holding that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to go into matter once a document had been admitted in evidence Under Section 36, Stamp Act. He observes thus:

It was admitted in evidence in the ordinary course without any objection by the Court of first instance and therefore Under Section 36, Stamp Act, it was not open to the defendant in the appellate Court to question its admissibility on the ground that it had not been properly stamped.

4. This view has been since followed in Noor Ahmad v. Irshad Ghaus AIR1933All821 . But the learned Advocate-General contends that Under Section 36 the admission of a document in ev