A court cannot admit a document in evidence without considering an objection regarding the stamp duty. The court must determine whether the document is properly stamped and, if not, whether it is liable to be stamped.

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order, dated 15-7-1996, passed by Ist Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 356-A/94.

2. It is not necessary to give the facts of this case in detail. The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 examined their father for proving their title to a document styled as a release-deed. The applicants objected to the admissibility of that document on two grounds. One that this document was not mentioned in the plaint nor was the witness summoned to produce this document and the second on the ground that document was not properly stamped as it is a sale-deed and not a release-deed. Objection was raised Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. This document is annexed as document No. 1 to the memo of revision. The trial Court made the following observations :

pwfd izfroknhx.k us vius tckonkok esa vfHkopu fd, gSa fd enzklh gksVy oknhx.k dh gSA ,oa mLrkost lk{; ds nkSjku xokg us izLrqr fd, gSaA bl dkj.k izn'kZ vafdr djus dh vuqefr nh tk ldrh gS] fdUrq iqu% izfroknhx.k ds vf/kous vkifÙk mBkbZ fd izLrqr nLrkost izfrQy ysdj fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gSA bl dkj.k fo i= fjyht&MhM ugha gSA fo i= gksus ij mfpr LVkEi 'kqYd vnk ugha fd;k x;k bl gsrq izfroknhx.k ds vf/kous U;k;n`"Vkar is'k djus gsrq le; pkgk vr% eq[; ijh LFkfxr fd;k x;kA

Thereafter, by the impugned order, the trial Court decided the question of admissibility as follows :

15&7&1996 i{kdkj iwoZorA bl vkns'k }kjk oknh lk{kh y{ehukjk;.k ds ijh{k.k ds nkSjku fn- 6&7&1996 dks izfroknh ds vf/ko}kjk mBkbZ xbZ vkifÙk dk fujkdj.k fd;k tk jgk gSA

vkifÙk laf{kIr esa bl izdkj gS fd oknh lk{kh }kjk izLrqr nLrkost fjyhM&MhM ugha gS] cfYd fo i= gksus ls ml ij mfpr LVkEi 'kqYd vnk ugha fd;k x;kA bl dkj.k izn'kZ ugha djk;k tk ldrkA vkifÙk ij lquk x;k ,oa fopkj fd;k x;k rFkk fjyht&MhM dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA pwfd mLrkost iath nLrkost bl dkj.k izn'kZ fd;k tk ldrk gS tgk rd mLrkost fjyht&MhM vFkok fo i= gksus dk iz'u gS rks bldk fujkdj.k fQygky fd;k tkuk vko';d ugha gSA D;ksafd blls izfroknh ds fgrksa dk dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha iM+rk gS vr% fopkjksijkar vkifÙk fujLr dh tkrh gSA rFkk izdj.k oknh lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k tkrk gS] oknh vius lk{; vkxkeh fu;r frfFk dks mi j[ksA izdj.k okLrs oknh lk{; gsrq fn- 7&7&1996

3. The learned counsel for the non-applicants has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that once a document has been admitted in evidence, no civil revision lies against the order, passed by the trial Court.

4. The counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, contends that the trial Court has not admitted the document considering the objection regarding the stamp duty. But the impugned order, the trial Court has not decided the objection at all and for this reason, the revision is maintainable.

5. It is, therefore necessary to consider the objection of the learned counsel for the non-applicants in this case. It is clear from the first part of the order, quoted above, that the trial Court has decided the first part of objection by saying that the applicants have pleaded about the document in their written statement. Therefore, the first objection was rejected by saying that permission to exhibit that document could be granted. Thereupon second objection was raised by the applicant to the effect that this document is a sale-deed and not a release-deed and it has not been properly stamped. Thereafter, the trial Court stayed the examination-in-chief for some time so that the counsel may cite authorities in support of his arguments. It is thus clear that at this stage the trial Court had not admitted the document. Subsequently, by the impugned order, it was held that the document was a registered document and, therefore, the question of deciding the question whether it is a release-deed or sale-deed did not arise. It could be admitted in evidence. The learned counsel for the non-applicants says that the impugned order of the Court below right or wrong is