H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 20-9-1995, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Chitradurga in original Suit No. 1168 of 1989, admitting the document which is alleged to be a partition deed. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri B. M. Siddappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yatish Kumar, Advocate holding brief for Sri kaleemulla Shariff, Counsel for the respondent. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted before me in support of the revision that the learned court below has acted illegally and in breach of the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, in admitting the document which was not stamped at all in accordance with the Stamp Act and in violation of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian stamp Act. As such he submitted that the order admitting the document in evidence be set aside and the revision be allowed. Learned Counsel for the applicant further placed before me an order which is in Kannada, translated to English. As per reading of that order, the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of the stamp, though objection by the revisionist-applicant has been raised, but has not been decided by the Trial Court. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court has observed that it will be decided at a later stage of the suit and subject to those objections to be decided later on it is being taken on record. He submitted that his objections should have been decided first and thereafter the document should have been admitted, because once it is admitted in evidence and acted upon, then it is not open to review by that Court or by an Appellate Court to consider any such document on the ground, that document was insufficiently stamped, except in cases covered by Section 58 or 61 of the Stamp Act. ( 4 ) THE revision has hotly been contested by Sri Yatish Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party. He submitted before me that the order impugned does not amount to a case decided and in this connection he made reference to the decision of this Court in the case of M. C. Madhura v Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and others. Sri Yatish Kumar further submitted that apart from that the Court below has not committed any error. He submitted before me that the order impugned does not amount to a case decided and in this connection he made reference to the decision of this Court in the case of M. C. Madhura v Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and others. Sri Yatish Kumar further submitted that apart from that the Court below has not committed any error. The question whether a document is sufficiently stamped or not has yet, got to be decided before it can be used for the purpose of decision of the case. As the Trial Court itself has provided in its order that subject to this objection being disposed off, at the time of final hearing, the document is taken on record. In this connection he submitted that in doing so the Court below did not commit any error of jurisdiction or law and made reference to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Rattan (dead) by L. Rs. v Bajrang Lal and Others. I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) AS regards law under Sections 34 and 36 of Indian Stamp Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid it down in the case of Javer Chand and Others v Pukhraj Surana , as under:"that section is categorical in its terms that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or the proceeding on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped. The only exception recognised by the section is the class of cases contemplated by Section 61 which is not material to the present controversy. Section 36 does not admit of other exceptions. 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, so 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. Once the Court rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so 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. 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". All these observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reveal that if parties want to raise an objection to the admissibility of the document, particularly on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped or is not stamped accordingly, he should raise the objection in the first instance before admission. Once the objection has been raised, it has got to be decided and without deciding that question, a document cannot ordinarily be admitted in evidence or cannot be taken to have been judicially admitted. Once the objection has been raised, it has got to be decided and without deciding that question, a document cannot ordinarily be admitted in evidence or cannot be taken to have been judicially admitted. But once the Court takes a decision on the question of objection and thereafter admits the document, thereafter the question of admissibility of document on the ground that it is unduly stamped is not to be raised at a higher Court. ( 6 ) IN the present case the Court below has left that question whether the document requires to be stamped and has not been properly stamped to be decided at a later stage. It leads me to come to the conclusion that judicial act has yet to be performed by the Court, before or at least at the time of the hearing of the case. Ordinarily question of admissibility may be considered as soon as it is raised, but there may be circumstances where Court may subject to the decision to be taken later on, may take the document on record and at this stage it may be taken to be an act of the Court with open eyes that question of admissibility, as it has not been decided, it cannot be taken that Court has admitted the document itself, but it has taken on record or its admission is always subject to that decision. ( 7 ) IN the case of Ram Rattan, supra, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:"when the document is tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box and objection is raised by the defendants that the document is inadmissible in evidence as it is not duly stamped or for want of registration, it is obligatory upon the trial Judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and to decide the objection in accordance with law. Tendency sometimes is to postpone the decision to avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence and, therefore, a very convenient device is resorted to, of marking the document in evidence subject to objection. This however, would not mean that the objection as to admissibility on the ground that the instrument is not duly stamped is judicially decided; it is merely postponed. This however, would not mean that the objection as to admissibility on the ground that the instrument is not duly stamped is judicially decided; it is merely postponed. In such a situation at a later stage before the suit is finally disposed of it would nonetheless be obligatory upon the court to decide the objection. If after applying mind to the rival contentions the Trial Court admits a document in evidence, Section 36 of the Stamp Act would come into play and such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The Court, and of necessity it would be Trial Court before which the objection is taken about admissibility of document on the ground that it is not duly stamped, 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 and where a document has been inadvertently admitted without the court applying its mind as to the question of admissibility, the instrument could not be said to have been admitted in evidence with a view to attracting Section 36 (See: Javer chand's case, supra ). The endorsement made by the learned trial Judge that "objected, allowed subject to objection",clearly indicates that when the objection was raised it was not judicially determined and the document was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation Section 36 would not be attracted". These observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned two cases very clearly indicate that if an objection has been raised to the admissibility of a document, on the ground of its being unstamped or insufficiently stamped, ordinarily objection should be decided at the moment or time when it is taken. These observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned two cases very clearly indicate that if an objection has been raised to the admissibility of a document, on the ground of its being unstamped or insufficiently stamped, ordinarily objection should be decided at the moment or time when it is taken. But once the Court subjects its admission to the objections being decided or subject to objections that have been raised and to be decided later on, the duty of the Court is to decide those objections before the decision of the case and the admitting of that document is nothing but only marking of exhibit, but Section 36 of the Act will not apply to such a case and the Court can consider the objection itself and decide about its admissibility on that ground because earlier taking of the document on record or admitting the document leaving the question involved to be decided, it will not mean to be a judicial act of admitting a document. That being the position even if for the moment the document has been taken into record by the Court below and it has been observed that the objection has been raised to its admissibility on the ground of it being unstamped or insufficiently stamped, it is always open to be raised at the subsequent stage of the suit and before the Trial Court and no doubt I am quite sure the Trial Court will decide it. So this taking or admitting of document in evidence has not got the tendency of causing any material injury or injustice to the plaintiff revisionist-applicant. At this stage no doubt it may be said that Trial Court did some irregularity in taking the document on record without deciding the objections. But there may be situations where the Court may postpone decision of the matter because it may require lengthy arguments. But one thing has to be clarified that once the objection is taken, if its decision has been postponed, it has to be decided, before giving any final decision in the suit. When there is no decision it is merely tentatively marking of the document or taking of the document on record leaving the objections to be decided. The order in question cannot be termed to be an order amounting to be a case decided. When there is no decision it is merely tentatively marking of the document or taking of the document on record leaving the objections to be decided. The order in question cannot be termed to be an order amounting to be a case decided. If the question was whether a document was sufficiently stamped or insufficiently stamped or after holding that a document was sufficiently stamped or it did not require to be stamped, the Court by an order would have admitted the document. Even then, it would not have been open to the applicant to file a revision because once the Trial Court applies its judicial mind to that question and gives a decision, that chapter is closed so far as that matter is concerned, so far as the private parties are concerned leaving apart the question of the Government relating to its taxing power or stamp taking power. When the judicial decision has not been taken regarding admissibility of the document before taking it on record, the admitting of document at this stage by the Trial Court will not be a judicial act, which can be said to be one after determination and decision of objection only to which Section 36 of the Stamp Act may apply. ( 8 ) THUS considered 1 am of the opinion that the present revision has got no force and the revision is hereby disposed of as misconceived at present, but subject to the above observations as made earlier. --- *** --- .