ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner against the order dated 16.2.2024 (Annexure P/1) recorded in paragraph No.8 of deposition of DW/1, Bhanwarlal whereby his objection to the admissibility of document dated 1.12.1997 on the ground of the same being deficiently stamped and being unregistered has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff has instituted an action against defendants for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction with respect to the suit lands. Defendant No.1 has contested the plaintiff's claim by filing his written statement. Upon pleading of the parties, issues were framed by the trial Court and thereafter the case was fixed for recording of plaintiff's evidence.

3. The examination of plaintiff as PW/1 was then conducted. During his cross-examination, he was confronted under Order XIII Rule 3 (a) of the CPC with a document dated 1.12.1997 which he denied. The said document was marked as Exhibit D/10 by the trial Court.

4. Upon closure of plaintiff's evidence, the case was fixed for defendants' evidence after which defendant No.1 was examined as DW/1. During his examination, he sought to prove the document dated 1.12.1997. The plaintiff raised an objection submitting that the document is a sale-deed and is deficiently stamped and is also unregistered though the same was compulsorily required to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act, hence is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. The trial Court has rejected the said objection by observing that the document has already been exhibited during plaintiff's examination without any objection by him hence at this stage his objection is not tenable. The plaintiff ought to have raised objection as regards admissibility of the document at the earliest stage and having failed to do so, cannot do so now.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

6. The objection of plaintiff to the admissibility of the document has presumably been rejected by the trial Court in view of provision of section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, which is as under:-

"36. Admission of instrument where not to be questioned. —Where 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."

7. In Ram Rattan (dead) by L.Rs.v. Bajrang Lal and Others 1978 (3) SCC 236 the apex Court has held that if after applying mind to rival contentions, the trial Court admits a document in evidence, section 36 of the Stamp Act would come into play and such admission cannot be called in question at a later stage of the suit. Where a document has been inadvertently admitted without the Court applying its mind as to the question of its admissibility, the instrument could not be said to have been admitted in evidence with a view to attracting section 36.

8. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another 2003 (8) SCC 752 it has been further held by the apex Court that the objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground that the same is inadmissible by itself can be raised even after the document has been marked as an exhibit or even in appeal or revision. It has been held as under:-

"20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1457] in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the above said case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objectio