N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision application by. the original defendants nos. 3 and 4 being aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned trial judge i. e. Judge Small Causes Court Ahmedabad in H. R. P. Suit no. 981 of 1976 on his file. Before the learned trial Judge one document marked 8711 was admitted into evidence by giving ex. 89. Thereafter the original defendants nos. 1 and 2 gave an application ex. 100 contending that the document was inadmissible in evidence because it was insufficiently stamped and because it required registration. The learned judge by his order below ex. 100 allowed that application on the ground that the document was Insufficiently stamped. Being aggrieved by the said order the original defendants nos. 3 and 4 have invoked this Courts revisional jurisdiction under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the original defendants nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The rest of the parties ar. duly served. Under sec. 35 of the Bombay Stamp Act a document once admitted in evidence cannot be thrown aside on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped. The text of sec. 35 is too clear to call for any elaboration. It provides that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. There is a catena of authorities on this point reiterating the obvious text of sec. 35 of the Act. Rightly or wrongly once a document has been admitted into evidence the question of insufficiency of stamp cannot be raised thereafter. The learned trial Judge therefore in my view was wrong in exercising his jurisdiction and in passing the impugned order. To that extent the revision application is required to be allowed and is allowed. It is declared that the document ex. 39 cannot be treated as no evidence only because it is allegedly insufficiently stamped. The learned Judge has no jurisdiction to go behind that question once he admitted the document into evidence. I make it clear that the question of registration remains open and even if a document is given an exhibit number. It is declared that the document ex. 39 cannot be treated as no evidence only because it is allegedly insufficiently stamped. The learned Judge has no jurisdiction to go behind that question once he admitted the document into evidence. I make it clear that the question of registration remains open and even if a document is given an exhibit number. If it cannot be read because of its being not registered that point can be raised at any time. It is a clear point of law that can be canvassed. The revision application accordingly is allowed and the order of the learned trial Judge is set aside in so far as it pertains to the levy of the allegedly deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon but the learned judge still thinks fit that he can send this document to the collector for taking action under the Bombay Stamp Act there will be nothing in my order which would prevent him from doing so. He may retain the copy of this document with the consent of both sides and proceed with the trial and may send the original document for its being legally dealt with by the competent authority namely the Collector exercising the power under the Bombay Stamp Act. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. Application allowed. .