Judgment 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff on a promissory note. The promissory note was executed by defendants 1 and 2 and the trial Court admitted the promissory note as against defendant 1, passed a decree in favour or the plaintiff against defendant 1, and dismissed the suit against defendant 2. The plaintiff has now come in appeal. 2. The promissory note bears the signature of both the defendants, taut it is admitted by the plaintiff that when defendants 1 and 2 signed the promissory note it did not bear the requisite stamps and the requisite stamps were affixed subsequently and they were cancelled by defendant 1. On this admitted position the question arises whether in law this promissory note is admissible in evidence as against defendant 2. When we look at the scheme of the Stamp Act, it is clear that the Stamp Act does not contemplate the execution of an unstamped document in India when the document is chargeable to duty and as we shall presently point out, the Stamp Act requires every document which is chargeable to duty and which is executed in India to be executed after it is duly stamped and the consequence of a document being executed which is not duly stamped, if it is a promissory note, is that under Section 35 it becomes inadmissible in evidence. Section 11, Stamp Act refers to documents which may be stamped with adhesive stamps and the promissory note fails under Clause (a) of Section 11. Section 12 (1)(a) refers to documents which have been already executed without the necessary stamps being affixed thereon and the fixing takes place subsequently and also the cancellation. Obviously, this sub-section deals with those documents which fall under Sections 18 and 19 and which can be executed without being stamped, the execution of the document taking place outside India. Section 12 (1)(b) deals with cases of documents executed in India. Section 17 provides that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in India shall be stamped before or at the time of execution. Clause (b) of Section 12 (1) provides: "Whoever executes any instrument on any paper bearing an adhesive stamp shall, at the time of execution, unless such stamp has been already cancelled in the manner aforesaid, cancel the same so that it cannot be used again". Clause (b) of Section 12 (1) provides: "Whoever executes any instrument on any paper bearing an adhesive stamp shall, at the time of execution, unless such stamp has been already cancelled in the manner aforesaid, cancel the same so that it cannot be used again". Therefore, Clause (b) clearly contemplates the execution of an instrument on a paper which already bears a stamp and it casts an obligation upon the executant to cancel the stamp so that it cannot be used again. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 provides: "Any instrument bearing an adhesive stamp which has not been cancelled so that it cannot be used again, shall, so far as such stamp is concerned, be deemed to be unstamped". An interesting argument was advanced before us whether on the facts of this case it could be said that the document was duly cancelled, but in our opinion it is unnecessary to consider that aspect of the case. It is possible to dispose of this appeal on a much narrower point. 3. Turning again to Section 17, it provides that the stamping of an instrument chargeable with duty and which has been executed in India must be before or at the time of execution. Therefore, if a document is executed which is not stamped either before or at time of execution, It would not be duly stamped for the purpose of the Stamp Act and would be inadmissible in evidence by reason of Section 35. The question that we have to consider is whether with regard to the promissory note before us it could be said that it was stamped before or at the time of execution. The evidence is clear, and that is the evidence of the plaintiffs husband. He says that defendant 1 wrote out the promissory note in suit and defendants 1 and 2 put their signatures on it in his presence. That completes the execution of the promissory note which was not stamped. Then it was stamped and defendant 1 signed the promissory note on the stamps in his presence. Therefore, this is clear evidence to establish that the stamping of the promissory note took place after its execution. In that case the provisions of Section 17 have not been complied with and the document has not been stamped either before or at the time of execution. 4. Mr. Therefore, this is clear evidence to establish that the stamping of the promissory note took place after its execution. In that case the provisions of Section 17 have not been complied with and the document has not been stamped either before or at the time of execution. 4. Mr. Kapadia strongly relied on a Judgment of the Madras High Court in -- Surij Mull v. Hudson, 24 Mad 259 (A). In that case the executant was only one and the promissory note was signed by him and subsequently it was stamped, and the question was whether the provisions of Section 17 had been complied with, and the Madras High Court held that the uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff shows that the acts were practically simultaneous and the stamping was therefore done at the time of execution within the meaning of Section 16 which corresponded to Section 17 of the present Act. With very great respect to the Madras High Court, it is difficult to understand the significance of the expression "practically simultaneous". Either the stamping is after execution or it is before or at the time of execution. If the stamping is after execution, then clearly the case does not fall within Section 17. Mr. Kapadia has suggested that if the transaction of execution and stamping is one, then it could be said that the stamping was clone at the time of execution. But it is clear in our opinion that Section 17 requires that the stamping should be done some time before the document is executed or that a stamped paper must be placed before the executant who must execute it or just before he executes it he must stamp it and execute the document. But if the executant has already finished with the execution of the document and in the eye of the law the document could be said to have been executed any subsequent, stamping, however close in time, could not be said to be stamping at the time of execution, and again when we look at the scheme of Section 12(1)(b) that also contemplates clearly that the document which is executed already bears an adhesive stamp in other words, the execution is subsequent to the stamping of the document. In our opinion, it is clear on the facts of this case that the stamping took place subsequent to the execution and therefore it could not be said that the promissory note was stamped before or at the time of execution. 5. It is then urged by Mr. Kapadia that as the promissory note has been admitted in evidence by the learned Judge, its admissibility cannot be questioned under Section 36, Stamp Act. The learned Judge in his judgment makes it perfectly clear that he has admitted this promissory note against defendant 1, that the document is not admissible against defendant 2, that no liability can be fastened upon defendant 2 by reason of this promissory note, and therefore the suit against defendant 2 must be dismissed. What Section 36 prohibits is the calling in question at any stage of the admission of a document on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped when it has already been admitted in evidence. This clearly applies to the case of defendant 1 against whom the promissory note has been admitted in evidence. If he were Before us he could not question the admission of this document on the ground that it has not been duly stamped. It is difficult to understand how Section 36 can prevent defendant 2 from resisting the admission of this document in evidence when the document has never been admitted in evidence against him and when it is the appellant who seeks to get the document admitted for the first time before us. 6. The result therefore is that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs. 7. Appeal dismissed.