Once a document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be called into question at a later stage, as per Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act.

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. In this petition I am called upon to decide the question whether the suit promissory note is admissible in evidence. The lower Court held that it was inadmissible and this petition is to revise that order of the learned District Munsiff.

2. The question arose in the following circumstances. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He instituted a suit on a promissory note for Rs. 200. The defendant raised the contention that the suit note was a forgery. He also stated that the promissory note was insufficiently stamped and was therefore inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. When the case came on for hearing the defendant did not appear. He asked for an adjournment which was refused. But he did not withdraw his appearance in the case. The learned District Munsiff admitted the promissory note in evidence and decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred against this decision, but the learned Judge in appeal thought that the case was one which should have been adjourned by the learned Munsif. He therefore remanded the suit to the District Munsif giving time for the defendant to produce his evidence. When the case came before the District Munsif, the defendant pressed his objection that the suit note was inadmissible and he contended that the suit should be dismissed. As stated in the beginning a ruling was given by the lower Court accepting his contention.

3. In this Civil Revision Petition it is argued by the petitioner that once the insufficiently stamped promissory note has been admitted in evidence it is not open to the party concerned to raise the objection at a later stage that it is inadmissible and so the ruling of the lower Court is wrong. Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act says:

When an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.

4. The question for decision in the present case therefore is whether the suit promissory note "has been admitted in evidence." This question has come before this Court on very many occasions and has been dealt with by various learned Judges. I do not propose to discuss these decisions in detail. In all these cases the principle which the learned Judges applied in deciding the question was whether there was a judicial determination on the question whether the document was admissible in evidence or not. In some cases objection is raised, issue is framed and a decision given. In such cases there can be no doubt that the judicial mind of the Judge has been applied to a consideration of the question. But in very many cases what happens is that no objection is raised, no issue is framed and the document is let in evidence. The difficulty in deciding the question arises in cases of this kind. Even in such cases, the weight of the authority in this Court is in my opinion in favour of the position that if a document is let in, whether after deciding the objection or not, it has been admitted in evidence within the meaning of Section 36 of the Stamp Act and the admissibility of it cannot therefore be called in question. The cases which support this position are Venkateswara v. Ramanatha AIR1929Mad622 , Satyavati v. Pallaya AIR1937Mad431 and Abdul Wahab v. Kanaka Anjaneyalu AIR1935Mad888 . The latter case is a decision of Pandrang Row, J., and it may be distinguishable on the facts, but the principle is stated by the learned Judge as I have stated it above.

5. In the present case what happened was this. On the back of the document it is endorsed by the District Munsiff that the promissory note is insufficiently stamped and it was allowed to go in. It bears a rubber stamp with the initials of the Judge. The learned Counsel for the respondent argues that unless the document has been initialled by the Judge it cannot be said to have been admitted in evidence and in support of that position, my