Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The suit was filed upon an insufficiently stamped promissory note. The question that was chiefly debated in the lower Courts was, whether or not the plaintiff could fall back upon the original cause of action; but on account of the turn the case has taken, that question becomes immaterial. The learned District Munsif, being of the opinion that in any event the promissory note could be relied on as containing an acknowledgment of liability, allowed the note to be filed in evidence and on the strength of it, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. That decree of the District Munsif has been set aside by the lower Appellate Court.

2. Mr. Mtarama Rao, for the plaintiff (appellant) contends that the document having been once admitted in evidence, the original defect no longer operates as a hindrance. Section 36 of the Indian Scamp Act provides:

Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such iustrument 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

3. There is no force in the respondents contention that Section 36 does not ap