JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiff's case is that on 1-11-62 Defendant took a loan of Rs. 240/- from him stipulating to pay interest at twelve percent per annum. He executed the promissory note (Ex. 1) in evidence of the loan. Defendant denied loan and the execution of the pronote. He pleaded that he had given a blank paper with thumb marks by way of collateral security as he was a bhag tenant under the Plaintiff. The promissory note was affixed with a revenue stamp of one anna. Admittedly by the date of the promissory note, ten paise revenue stamp was in vogue and one anna revenue stamp had no legal sanction. The learned S.C.C. Judge dismissed the suit holding that the promissory note was insufficiently stamped, and, as such, was inadmissible u/s 35 of the Stamp Act. Holding further that even secondary evidence as to the contents of the document was inadmissible, he dismissed the suit without recording any finding whether the promissory note was genuine or whether any loan was advanced there under. Against this judgment dismissing the suit, the civil revision has been filed. 2. The following questions arise for consideration: (i) Can the admissibility, of Ex. 1 be questioned after it was admitted in evidence in view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act? (ii) Even assuming that Ex. 1 is inadmissible, is not the Plaintiff entitled to a decree on the original cause of action? 3. Section 35 lays down that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. As by the date of Ex.1 ten paise revenue stamp was to be affixed on it was insufficiently stamped even though an one anna revenue stamp had been affixed. One anna revenue stamp had no legal sanction and affixing such a stamp is as good as affixing no stamp. By proviso (a) to Section 35, certain instruments chargeable with duty not exceeding ten paise can be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty prescribed therein. Promissory note does not, however come within the exception. One anna revenue stamp had no legal sanction and affixing such a stamp is as good as affixing no stamp. By proviso (a) to Section 35, certain instruments chargeable with duty not exceeding ten paise can be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty prescribed therein. Promissory note does not, however come within the exception. An, insufficiently stamped promissory note cannot, therefore, be admitted in evidence even if the duty and penalty are paid. 4. Section 36 of the Stamp Act prescribes that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be caned in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. It is contended by Mr. Khan that the promissory note had been admitted in evidence in this case and was marked as Ex. 1 and that the learned S.C.C. Judge acted contrary to law in questioning the admission of the document while writing judgment in disregard of the provisions of the section. 5. Mr. Mukherji contends that "admission" in Section 36 means the act of letting in document as part of evidence as a result of judicial determination of the question whether the document is admissible in evidence or not and that unless the Court had applied its mind a to the admissibility of the document, the Court cannot be said to have admitted the document in evidence. Reliance is placed on Attili Venkanna Vs. Parasuram Byas trading under the name of Parasuram Doulatram and Others Attili Venkanna Vs. Parasuram Byas trading under the name of Parasuram Doulatram and Others, and AIR 1933 271 (Lahore) . He concedes that if the Court had applied its judicial mind to the question of admissibility but decides the matter wrongly, Section 36 would be a bar to raising an objection at a subsequent stage. The rival contention is that once a document is admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, Section 36 is a complete bar to raising further objection even if the Court had not judicially determined the question. Nirod v. Sital AIR 1930 Ca. The rival contention is that once a document is admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, Section 36 is a complete bar to raising further objection even if the Court had not judicially determined the question. Nirod v. Sital AIR 1930 Ca. 577, supports this view where Sir George Rankin, C.J. observed thus: The learned Judge has entirely failed to see that u/s 36, it matters nothing whether it was wrongly admitted or rightly admitted or admitted without objection or after hearing or without hearing such objection. These stamp matters are really no concern of the parties.... This decision was followed in Krishna Kumar Chatterji Vs. Mt. Jagpati Kuer and Others, 6. The view of Sir George Rankin seems to be the correct view and the matter is concluded in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana 1961 S.C.D. 914. Their Lordships observed thus: Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, 80 far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. Section 35 is in the nature of a penal provision and has far-reaching effects. Parties to a litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to be circumspect and the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. The record in this case discloses the fact that the hundis were marked as Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 and bore the endorsement 'admitted in evidence' under the signature of the Court. It is not, therefore, one of those cases where a document; has been inadvertently admitted, without the Court applying its mind to the question of its admissibility. The record in this case discloses the fact that the hundis were marked as Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 and bore the endorsement 'admitted in evidence' under the signature of the Court. It is not, therefore, one of those cases where a document; has been inadvertently admitted, without the Court applying its mind to the question of its admissibility. Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was 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. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction. 7. There is an observation of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid passage: It is not, therefore, one of those cases where a document has been inadvertently admitted, without the Court applying its mind to the question of its admissibility. "Inadvertent", as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means "not properly attentive; negligent; unintentional". Such a case may occur where the question of admission of a document was never at all brought to the notice of the Court. A Bench Clerk might note on the document that it had been admitted even without the knowledge of the advocates and might take the signature of the presiding Judge mechanically. In such class of cases, a document, though marked as an exhibit, might not be taken as admitted in evidence. 8. In this case, the promissory note has been marked as an exhibit even after objection was put in by the Defendant and it was noted in the List of Exhibits as "marked with objection". In the circumstances, the document cannot be said to have been inadvertently admitted. 9. Placing reliance on Order XIII, Rules 4 and 6, Mr. Mukherji contends that in the absence of endorsements prescribed therein, the Court has to bold that the document has been inadvertently admitted. Order XIII, Rules 4(1) and 6 may be quoted: Rule 4(1). In the circumstances, the document cannot be said to have been inadvertently admitted. 9. Placing reliance on Order XIII, Rules 4 and 6, Mr. Mukherji contends that in the absence of endorsements prescribed therein, the Court has to bold that the document has been inadvertently admitted. Order XIII, Rules 4(1) and 6 may be quoted: Rule 4(1). Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be, endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely: (a) the number and title of the suit, (b) the name of the person producing the document, (c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted; and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. Rule 6. Where a document relied on as evidence by either party is considered by the Court to be inadmissible in evidence, there shall be endorsed thereon the particulars mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 4, Sub-rule (1), together with a statement of its having been rejected, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. In both the rules, the endorsements to be made under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) are common. The promissory note does not bear the particulars to be endorsed either under Rule 4 or Rule 6. The entire endorsement is to the effect: S.C.C. 224-65 Ext. 1 A.K.P. S.C.C. Judge The learned Judge ought to have applied his mind then and there when the objection was taken and should have recorded in the order-sheet whether he considered the document admissible or inadmissible. If be thought it to be inadmissible, be should have made an endorsement to that effect as required under Rule 6. In the absence of any endorsement to the contrary, the only logical inference is that he admitted the document in evidence and marked it as an exhibit and wrongly took the view that he would consider the objection later on. In following such a procedure, the learned Judge definitely acted contrary to law. But in view of the provisions of Section 36 of the Stamp Act, the document, if marked, cannot be taken objection to at a subsequent stage. The learned Judge should not have, therefore, excluded the promissory note Ex. 1 from consideration. 10. In following such a procedure, the learned Judge definitely acted contrary to law. But in view of the provisions of Section 36 of the Stamp Act, the document, if marked, cannot be taken objection to at a subsequent stage. The learned Judge should not have, therefore, excluded the promissory note Ex. 1 from consideration. 10. Plaintiff has examined himself and the scribe (p.w. 2) in support of his case that money was advanced by way of loan. This is corroborated by the Promissory note. Nothing substantial has been urged why P.ws. 1 and 2 should be disbelieved. Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to a decree. In that view of the matter, it is unnecessary to examine the second question. 11. In the result, the judgment of the learned S.O.C. Judge is set aside and the Plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs. The Civil Revision is allowed with costs. Hearing-fee of Rs. 50/-. Final Result : Allowed