ORDER Anna Chandy, J. 1. In this petition I am called upon to decide the question whether Ext. P-1 kurippu is admissible in evidence. 2. The suit is for the balance due to the plaintiff from the defendant on account of dealings in cocoanuts. The accounts between them were settled and on the 23rd November 1955 the kurippu was executed by the defendant. It reads as follows: The defendant denied the execution of the kurippu and also objected to its admissibility under S.35 of the Stamp Act as it is a document requiring a stamp of one anna under Schedule I, Art-1 of the Stamp Act. The learned Munsiff over-ruled the objection and admitted the document. 3. Art. I, Schedule.l of the Indian Stamp Act reads thus: "Acknowledgment of a debt exceeding twenty rupees in amount or value, written or signed by, or on behalf of, a debtor in order to supply evidence of such debt in any book (other than a banker's pass book) or on a separate piece of paper when such book or paper is left in the creditor's possession; provided that such acknowledgment does not contain any promise to pay the debt or any stipulation to pay interest or to deliver any goods or other property......One anna". The plaintiff's case is that the kurippu was executed only to admit the correctness of the amount of the debt and not to supply evidence of the debt and hence it is not an acknowledgment coming within the purview of Article I of Schedule.l. The learned Munsiff has gone into the question in the light of the wording of the kurippu, the pleadings and also the evidence of the plaintiff and has by a fairly long order held that the kurippu was only intended to admit the correctness of the accounts and not to supply evidence of the debt. The kurippu was hence allowed to be proved by the plaintiff and marked as Ext. A-1. 4. In this revision the defendant challenges the correctness of the order and maintains that the kurippu has been wrongly admitted in evidence as it was intended to supply evidence of the debt. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff questions the competency of the revision because of the bar of S.36 of the Stamp Act. A-1. 4. In this revision the defendant challenges the correctness of the order and maintains that the kurippu has been wrongly admitted in evidence as it was intended to supply evidence of the debt. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff questions the competency of the revision because of the bar of S.36 of the Stamp Act. S.36 of the Stamp Act enjoins that: "Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not except as provided in S.61, be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped." The objection must prevail. Judicial opinion is uniform that once a document is admitted in evidence the admissibility of such a document cannot thereafter be called in question. Decisions have gone to the extent "that under S.36 it matters nothing whether a document was wrongly admitted or rightly admitted or admitted without objection or after hearing or without hearing such objection"-vide Mebr Sardar v. Emperor-AIR. 1930 Calcutta 577. Again in Eopanna Prakasam v. Nagabhusaanam ((1938) II MLJ. 478) it was held that "S. 36 of the Stamp Act does not say that there must be judicial determination of the question whether a document has to be admitted in evidence. The words "admitted in evidence" in the section would seem to have been deliberately used to avoid complicated enquiries regarding the admission of the documents". As noted earlier, in this case there is a judicial determination of the question whether the kurippu was to be admitted in evidence. 6. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that as the kurippu was denied by the defendant it was not proper to have admitted it in evidence as the plaintiff is not competent to prove it. The kurippu was executed in the plaintiff's presence and in his favour and it cannot be contended that the plaintiff was not competent to prove it and any question about genuineness of the kurippu or the sufficiency of the proof is not relevant to this enquiry. 7. The order admitting the kurippu in evidence is confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed with costs.