This revision petition arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge (2) Cachar in Money Appeal No 5 of 1979 dismissing the appeal from the judgment and decree passed" by the Munsiff, Hailakandi in Money Suit No 14 of 1977. 2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.750/-. The case of the plaintiff is that on 16.2.74 the defendant-appellant borrowed Rs. 2.000/- from the plaintiff by executing a hand-note (Bxt-1) and promised to repay the same on demand. The defendant did not repay the money on demand and, therefore, the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 750/ as interest @ 12 % Per annum for tares (3) years. 3. The defendant contested the suit. It is not necessary to set out the defendant's case in details in view of the question raised in this petition. It is enough to state that the defendant admitted the signature on the document (Ext -I). The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The decree was appealed to the Assistant District Judge (2) Cachar. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The Courts below have held that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by executing the document (Ext -1). 4. The only point which has been raised before me is that the document (Ext-1) on the basis of which the suit was brought is not admissible in evidence on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the document (Ext-1) is not a promissory note, bit it is a bond. Therefore, the document is chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in Article 15 of the Schedule -I. But the Ext -I does not bear the stamp required for a bond. In such a situation, the document (Ext-1) is not admi­ssible in evidence. 6. An instrument or a document h said "duly stamped* when the instrument or document bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such stamp has been affixed or used in accordance with law in force. A perusal of Ext-1 shows that the defendant signed on three (3) Revenue Stamps which are 10 paise each. It is not disputed that if the document is a promissory note the document is duly stamped. A perusal of Ext-1 shows that the defendant signed on three (3) Revenue Stamps which are 10 paise each. It is not disputed that if the document is a promissory note the document is duly stamped. It is also not disputed that if the .document is a bond it is not duly stamped. Be that as it.-may, even if the document is a bond, about which I an not expressing any opinion, the present controversy can be disposed of in view of section 36 of the Stamp Act. Section 36 of the Stamp Act runs: "Admission of instrument where not to be questions -Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.” Section 36 is clear in its terms that when a document has once been admitted in the evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument or document has not been duly stamped. The only exception recognised under section 36 is the class of cases contemplated by section 61. 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 I the document is tendered in evidence. But in the present case the question whether document was duly stamped was never raised before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court and, therefore, no order was made by the trial Court admitting the document in evidence as duly stamped, or as not requiring a stamp, or upon payment of duty and a penalty, under section 35. Since there was no order, how the trial Court applied its mind cannot be ascertained. For these reasons, section 61 is not material in the present controversy. 7. It appears from the records that the-defendant admitted his signature but he denies the execution of the document as such; and that the document was marked as Ext-1 and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses. For these reasons, section 61 is not material in the present controversy. 7. It appears from the records that the-defendant admitted his signature but he denies the execution of the document as such; and that the document was marked as Ext-1 and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses. As already stated earlier, the defendant did not raise the question whether the document was duly stamped before lower Courts and the defendant has raised the question for the first time in this petition. Therefore it cannot be said that the trial Court marked the document as an exhibit without applying its mind as to the question of inadmissibility. In such a situation, the provisions of section 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation and it is not open either to the trial Court itself or to a Court of appeal or revision (this Court). Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest. The Courts below have not considered how the plaintiff is entitled to interest of Rs. 750/-. The document does not show that the plaintiff is entitled to in­terest. There is also no material that the plaintiff is entitled to interest under the Interest Act. Accordingly, the decree as regards the interest cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The decree insofar as the principal amount of Rs. 2,000/-is concerned is affirmed, and the decree for interest is set aside. No costs.