1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.676 of 1999 is the revision petitioner.

2. The suit was filed by the revision petitioner for permanent injunction and during the examination of DW1, Exs.B1 to B42 were marked on 18.10.2010 and when the case was posted for cross-examination, on 19.10.2010, a representation was made by the counsel for the plaintiff stating that documents Exs.B3, 5, 7 and 8 were not duly stamped and without paying stamp duty penalty, the documents cannot be received in evidence and accepting the representation made by the revision petitioner, the court below directed the first defendant to pay the stamp duty penalty for those documents. Thereafter, a memorandum was filed at the instance of the first defendant stating that having regard to the judgment reported in KALIYA PERUMAL v. DHANDAPANI (2010-2-LW 644), once a document is marked in evidence, objection under section 35 of the Stamp Act cannot be raised and section 36 of the Stamp Act prohibits such objection being raised at a later point of time and that memorandum was rejected by the court below on 17.2.2011 stating that the order passed on 19.10.2010 was a judicial order and the same cannot be questioned by fili