N.K. Balakrishnan, J.— This Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. The suit document dated 31.1.2007, according to the petitioner, is only an agreement. In the written statement the defendant contended that it is a bond and since it is insufficiently stamped it is inadmissible in evidence. No specific issue was raised at that time regarding the admissibility of the said document. During trial affidavit was filed by the plaintiff in lieu of chief-examination. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before starting cross-examination no objection was raised by the defendant regarding the admissibility of the said document. It was marked as Ex. A1. Questions were also put to the plaintiff in cross-examination touching upon Ex. A1. After the evidence was closed the case was argued by both sides and was posted for judgment.

2. The petitioner contends that the learned Munsiff suo motu reopened the case and passed the impugned order impounding Ex. A1. The Court below came to the conclusion that though the document is styled as agreement the recitals would show that it is actually a bond. Learned counsel would submit that the