JUDGMENT
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The learned Judge varied the decree of the trial Court on account of the promissory note sued on not being sufficiently stamped. There is no reference in the judgment to the Full Bench decision in Devachand v. Hirachand Kamaraji (1889) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 449, F.B. and the decision in Shiddapa v. Irava (1893) I.L.R. 18 Bom. 737 which decided that when a document has been admitted in evidence in the trial Court, it cannot be called in question in the same suit on the ground that the document was not duly stamped. This is now provided by Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899 which corresponds with Section 34, proviso III, of the Act of 1879, on which those decisions were based. We, therefore, allow the appeal and restore the decree of the trial Court with costs throughout.