A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) GUR Sharan Singh Shall a (petitioner) is the tenant of a shop on the ground floor of premises no. 126/13/151, Chandra Market. Govind Nagar, Kanpur, on a rent of Rs. 400 per month on the basis of a memorandum of agreement dated 11. 10. 1987, executed by the tenant and Pherumal (the landlord ). Under memorandum of agreement, tenant was required to deposit Rs. 20. 000 (Copy of memorandum has been filed as Annexure-la to the writ petition ). ( 2 ) AFTER serving notice, landlord filed J. S. C. C. Suit No. 25 of 1995. Parties had opportunity to contest. The suit was decreed. S. C. C. Revision No. 26 of 1999, under Section 25. Provincial small Cause Court Act was filed which is pending. ( 3 ) DURING pendency of the revision, tenant /petitioner filed an application dated 23. 10. 1999. raising objection on the ground that the agreement (said to be memorandum of agreement) was not registered, hence it was not admissible in evidence and it could not be taken into account by the Court below in view of Section 33a and Section 47, Indian Stamp Act. Objections were filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 3. The revisional court, after hearing the parties, rejected the aforementioned application (Paper No. 63c) vide judgment and order dated 25. 2. 2000 (Annexure-IV to the writ petition ). ( 4 ) CONTESTING respondent No. 2 is represented by Sri M. L. Maurya, Advocate who had filed caveat application and accordingly, the present writ petition is being finally decided with the consent of the parties at admission stage. ( 5 ) PERUSAL of the impugned order (Annexure-IV) shows, that the document (said to be a memorandum of agreement - Annexure-1a to the writ petition) was filed before the Court of j. S. C. C. The said document was undisputedly admitted in evidence. No objection was raised from any corner. These facts are not denied by the petitioner before this Court. ( 6 ) THE revisional court dismissed the application on the ground that once a document was admitted in evidence, it could not be Ignored on the basis of the above provisions of the Indian stamp Act. No objection was raised from any corner. These facts are not denied by the petitioner before this Court. ( 6 ) THE revisional court dismissed the application on the ground that once a document was admitted in evidence, it could not be Ignored on the basis of the above provisions of the Indian stamp Act. ( 7 ) THE revisional court has relied upon the decision in the case of Javer Chand and others u. Pukh raj Surana, AIR 1962 SC 1655 (Para 5 ). Supreme Court has been pleased to observe "that High court was not correct in refusing to act upon the document which was not duly stamped in case said document were properly proved as required under law and their execution having been admitted by the defendant himself. " ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Sections 62 and 61 of Indian stamp Act, and relied upon a decision of learned single Judge in the case of Dakkhi Lal v. Judge, small Causes Court. District Allahabad and others. 1996 All CJ 16. In para 8 of the decision, learned single Judge observed that there are two lines of decisions taking contrary views. The learned single Judge preferred the view holding that a document, if admitted in evidence consciously by Court, then alone it can be said to have been admitted and if document is admitted in evidence, without being conscious or aware that it was not duly stamped, the same can be ignored. The observations, made by the Supreme Court in the case of Javer Chand (supra)that in case execution of a document is admitted to a party, it will not be proper for the Court to ignore on the ground of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, has not been referred to in the said judgment. ( 9 ) THE learned single Judge has referred to the decision of Jauer Chand (supra) (para 10) in support of the reasoning contained in the preceding paragraph. It appears, notice of the learned single Judge was not drawn to the above referred categorical observation of the Supreme Court in Para 5 of the Judgment in the case of Javer Chand (supra ). It appears, notice of the learned single Judge was not drawn to the above referred categorical observation of the Supreme Court in Para 5 of the Judgment in the case of Javer Chand (supra ). ( 10 ) PARAS 11 and 12, of the Judgment in the case of Dakkhi Lal (supra) highlight the distinguishing features of that case (as compared to the case in our hand ). In the case of Dakkhi lal, document was neither endorsed nor exhibited as required under Rule 4 of Order XXX, c. P. C. The learned single Judge observed that document was allowed to go in evidence by the court inadvertently. Petitioner. In the present case, made no attempt to demonstrate that the document in question was not endorsed or exhibited. Rather exhibition is admitted. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, there is no material to indicate that document was admitted inadvertently. ( 12 ) IF a document is not at all stamped or deficiently stamped, it will cause loss to the government exchequer, and not to the party in litigation. If execution of a certain document is admitted, it will not matter whether it is stamped or not. Even after a document, (which is deficiently stamped) has been admitted it is always open for the Court or the concerned party to bring this fact before the concerned Collector who may take appropriate action under the law including the Stamp Act to take care of the exchequer by impounding and realising deficient stamp duty, etc. ( 13 ) PARTIES having admitted execution of the document and the matter having been litigated before the Court below on merit, there is no point in rendering such proceedings a dismal, particularly when no prejudice is caused to any party so far as their rights are concerned. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next submitted on the basis of Section 61 and argued that revisional court ought to have referred the document to the Collector. The submission is untenable on the facts of the case. ( 15 ) AVERMENTS contained in the plaint (Writ Annexure-1) show that plaintiff nowhere stated that the document in question was a rent deed. Plaintiff described and claimed it to be a memorandum of agreement. Its execution is admitted to the parties. Question will be whether a memorandum requires stamp equivalent to the stamp duty required on a rent-deed. ( 15 ) AVERMENTS contained in the plaint (Writ Annexure-1) show that plaintiff nowhere stated that the document in question was a rent deed. Plaintiff described and claimed it to be a memorandum of agreement. Its execution is admitted to the parties. Question will be whether a memorandum requires stamp equivalent to the stamp duty required on a rent-deed. No attempt is made by the petitioner to show that stamp duty under law on the two types of document is same and as to whether it is permissible under law. ( 16 ) THERE is another aspect of the case. J. S. C. C. Revision No. 26 of 1999, is still pending and objections in peacemeal cannot be allowed to be raised to the defendant, it will ensure to check abuse of process of Court by avoiding multiplicity of proceedings apart from the fact that very object of having expeditious decision under Provincial Small Cause Court Act is otherwise frustrated. No right of the petitioner shall suffer in case document is not impounded. ( 17 ) IT is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.