ORDER
1. This revision is filed by the plaintiff in SC No. 154 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the II Addl.District Munsiff, Kakinada questioning the decree and judgment dated 20-12-1993 by which the suit was dismissed.
2. The revision petitioner who is the plaintiff had filed the said suit seeking recovery of the suit amount of Rs.3,900/- from the defendant contending that the defendant, who
is the present respondent, executed the suit pro-note on 12-6-1991 and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,000/-from him agreeing to repay the same and that he subsequently failed to discharge the said debt. The defendant contested the suit contending that he never executed the pro-note in favour of the plaintiff and the pro-note is a forged one, that there is also a material alteration in the promote and that, therefore, the suit is not maintainable on the basis of such a pro-note.
3. On the basis of the evidence adduced before it, the lower Court came to a clear conclusion that the suit pro-note is true, valid and was infact executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff having borrowed the pro-note amount and that there is no material alteration in the pro-note. Having come to such conclusions on the points in dispute, the lower Court however dismissed the suit on the ground that the pro-note, Ex.A-1, is for Rs.3,000/-and is, therefore, liable to be stamped with a revenue stamp of Re.0-25 ps, that the said pro-note is however stamped with a revenue stamp of Re. 0-20 ps and as such it is not properly stamped and the suit based on such insufficiently stamped pro-note is not maintainable. Questioning the decree and judgment, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff.
4. Heard both the learned Counsel.
5. It is clear from a perusal of the material on record including the averment in the written statement and the evidence of the plaintiff examined as PW 1 and the evidence of the defendant as DW 1 that the defendant never raised any objection regarding the insufficiency of the value of the stamp affixed to Ex.A-1 pro-note, A perusal of the evidence of PW1 also clearly shows that the defendant did not raise any objection for the marking of the suit pro-note as Ex.A-1 and the document was duly admitted by the Court by affixing the stamp and putting the initials of the Presiding Officer. Even during the chief examination of the defendant as DW 1, he did not raise any objection regarding the admissibility of Ex.A-1. It is, therefore, clear that the pro-note was marked as an exhibit
and received as evidence in the suit without any objection regarding the sufficiency of the value of the stamp. When once such a document is admitted and received as evidence without any objection, any objection regarding the sufficiency of the value of the stamp cannot be raised at a later stage. This view is clearly expressed in the decision of the Supreme Court in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, , wherein it is specifically held that once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, Section 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation and that when once the document has been admitted as evidence as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial Court or to the Court of appeal or revisional Court to go behind that order. In the case concerning that decision, the disputed documents were hundis which were also not duly stamped and such documents were admitted and received as evidence without any objection and such objection appears to have been raised only at a later stage. Those hundis are of the nature where the document cannot be admitted even on payment of stamp duty and penalty at a later stage. But inasmuch as the said documents were admitted and received as evidence without any objection and they were used during the chief and cross-examination of the witnesses, their Lordships held that an objection regarding the sufficiency of the stamp duty cannot be raised at a later stage. The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision in H.S.Ltd., v. M/s. Dilip Construction, AIR 1969 SC 1238 also, hi the Full Bench decision of our High Court in L.Sambasiva Rao v. T.Bala Kotaiah, (FB) it was observed by his Lordship Justice A.Sambasiva Rao in paragraph 175 of the judgment, after referring to the observations made by a Full Bench of this Court in the same decision, that as the promissory note had already become part of the record as one of the exhibits, the objection regarding its admissibility cannot be raised at a later stage and the suit based on such a pro-note is maintainable. The same view was
expressed by this Court in a recent decision in M.Ncirasimhulu v. M.Laxmamma, 1997 (1) ALD 246 also.
6. In view of these circumstances and in view of the facts of this particular case wherein Ex.A-1 pro-note was admitted and received as evidence without any objection during the course of the trial of the suit and also used as a piece of evidence, the suit filed on the basis of such a pro-note cannot be dismissed on the ground that the pro-note is insufficiently stamped. Therefore, the judgment of the lower Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Inasmuch as the lower Court has arrived at the clear finding that the suit pro-note is true, valid and supported by consideration, the suit is to be decreed and the revision is to be allowed.
7. The revision is, therefore, allowed but without costs and thejudgment and decree of the tower Court is set aside and the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for.