Curgenven, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. The suit was brought on an insufficiently stamped promissory note which was for this reason rejected by the Subordinate Judge and the suit dismissed. The question is whether having regard to the provisions of Section 36 of the Stamp Act the Subordinate Judge was right in rejecting the note; in other words, whether the note had not already been admitted in evidence. The circumstances are set out in the judgment of the Lower Court. It appears that the 1st defendant had admitted execution of the note and the hearing of the case had been closed and judgment was in preparation when the Subordinate Judges attention was drawn to the fact that the note was insufficiently stamped. He then proceeded to consider whether he had in fact admitted the document and answered the question in the negative. He was guided to this conclusion by a decision of this Court, Venkanna v. Parasuram Byas I.L.R. (1929) Mad. 137 : 56 M.L.J. 633, where it has been held that a document cannot be deemed to have been admitted in evidence until the Judge has applied his mind to a consideration of its admissibility. In that case there occurred the circumstance