Judgment :- 1. The first defendant in a small cause suit is the petitioner. The suit is for money due under the promissory note Ext. A alleged to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. The latter endorsed the note in favour of the plaintiff. The only defence set up in the suit by the 1st defendant was that Ext. A note was not genuine. On the evidence the lower court found that Ext. A note was executed by the first defendant and that it is genuine and accordingly a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The question of genuineness of the note cannot be allowed to be agitated in this revision petition. 2. However, it is urged on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that Ext. A is not duly stamped and that it should not have been admitted in evidence and a decree passed on it. The short answer to this contention is that the question of the admissibility of the document on the ground of being not properly stamped cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at the stage of revision. In the trial court no objection as to the admissibility of the Ext. A was raised and hence S.38 of the Travancore-Cochin Stamp Act, stands as a bar to raise the question of the admissibility of the instrument at any subsequent stage. The corresponding provision is contained in S.36 of the Indian Act. The position is also well settled by authoritative pronouncements. Vide AIR 1931 Calcutta 480, AIR 1923 Bombay 412 and AIR 1944 Bombay 235. The question is now concluded by the ruling of the Supreme Court in AIR 1956 Supreme Court 12. It follows therefore that the decree passed on Ext. A does not call for any interference. 3. In the result this revision petition is dismissed with costs.