( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. Rajendra, the counsel representing the petitioners and Sri Challa ajay Kumar, the counsel representing the respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiffs had preferred this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by an order made by the II Senior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 902 of 2003 in O. S. No. 595 of 2003, dated 10-09-2003. The respondent, who is the defendant in the suit, filed the said application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to impound the document Ex. A-5 dated 18-08-1999 marked on 23-07-2003 by reviewing the Order and pass such other suitable orders. The learned Judge allowed the said application and directed the section to put up the report relating to Ex. A-5 for the assessment of stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition. ( 3 ) SRI B. Rajendra, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is one without jurisdiction and the learned Judge should have dismissed the said application since the same was marked as Ex. A-5. When the document was already admitted by the Court, there is no question of ordering impounding of such a document. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions in this regard. Elaborate submissions were made relating to several factual aspects which had transpired before the Court below. The learned counsel also specifically pointed out that on the said date a request was made by the counsel representing the respondent herein and this aspect clearly goes to show that the ground of mala fide intention or the ground of playing fraud which are being canvassed, cannot be sustained at all. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent- defendant had taken this Court through the impugned order; the reasons recorded in the impugned order and also the reasons explained in paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application before the court below and also had taken this Court through the contents of paras 2 and 3 of the additional affidavit filed in this regard. The learned counsel would maintain that when a ground of mala fide intention or a ground of fraud or the grounds of like nature are raised and if prima facie the Court is satisfied that the marking of a document or admitting a document had been done by adopting such methods, the bar that such question cannot be agitated after marking of the document would not come into play at all. In other words, what the learned counsel contends is that such matters are to be treated on a different footing and always definitely the courts are having inherent powers to recall such orders either by way of review or otherwise. The learned counsel also pointed out that marking of Ex. A-5 was done in a clandestine way when the counsel was engaged in another Court and immediately an objection was raised even by filing a memo and subsequent thereto by moving an appropriate application. All these facts may have also to be taken into consideration and inasmuch as the learned Judge had reviewed the Order by recalling the order of marking ex. A-5 for the purpose of impounding, this court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction need not disturb the same. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard. As can be seen from the proceedings, the Civil Revision petition was admitted on 17-10-2003 and interim suspension was granted in C. M. P. 21210 of 2003. There cannot be any controversy in relation to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for therevision petitioners to the effect that after a document is admitted and exhibited, the question that the document is liable to be stamped or insufficiently stamped cannot be raised. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, l. Sambasiva Rao v. T. Balakotiah, Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum, Palevala Suryanarayana v. Mosa Kamaraju, M. Narasimhulu v. M. Laxmamma and Kedar Singh Chauhan v. Bhawan Singh. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, l. Sambasiva Rao v. T. Balakotiah, Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum, Palevala Suryanarayana v. Mosa Kamaraju, M. Narasimhulu v. M. Laxmamma and Kedar Singh Chauhan v. Bhawan Singh. ( 5 ) NO doubt, the learned counsel representing the respondent-defendant had made a serious attempt to show that marking of the document was under peculiar circumstances and either on the ground of marking with a mala fide intention or on the ground of playing fraud, the said order of marking definitely can be set aside and again the Court can definitely direct impounding of such documents, if otherwise, the Court is satisfied in this regard. In para 3 of the affidavit, it was stated that the Court was pleased to mark ten documents on behalf of the respondent in the applciation and in this regard, Ex. A-5, the General Power of attorney-Cum Construction Agreement dated 18-8-1999 between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the said document is inadmissible in evidence, since it has not been properly stamped or registered according to law. It was further stated in para 4 that the said document is liable to be impounded and when his counsel was on legs in another Court, with a mala fide intention the said document was marked by misleading the Court and it is gross abuse of the process of Court. In the additional affidavit filed. It was stated in para 2 that on 23-07-2003 the matter was coming up for furnishing the list of witnesses and when he requested for a pass over since his counsel was on legs, but for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs and their counsel had served chief-examination affidavit and subsequent thereto, the documents were marked and his counsel came to the Court and noticed the fraud played by way of marking of Exs. A-5 and A-6 and immediately a memo was filed on 23-07-2003 raising objections. The other reasons also had been narrated in para 3 of the affidavit. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, what had been recorded by the Court below shows that a request was made by the counsel for cross- examination on the same day. It is needless to say that the proceedings of the Court can be never doubted. The other reasons also had been narrated in para 3 of the affidavit. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, what had been recorded by the Court below shows that a request was made by the counsel for cross- examination on the same day. It is needless to say that the proceedings of the Court can be never doubted. No doubt, certain grounds are being raised by the respondent-defendant nin this regard by making specific allegations in the affidavit and also in the additional affidavit filed in support of the application. The counsel also in detail had explained the scheme and the object of the Indian Stamp act, 1899 (for brevity, the Act ) and had drawn the attention of this Court to sections 35,36 and 61 of the said Act and had contended that it is the duty of the Court to look into whether a document is properly stamped or not before admitting the document or giving the document an exhibit mark. There cannot be any doubt in this regard. But, however, the question is when once the document was exhibited and admitted whether at a subsequent stage, the said objection can be raised and on an application moved in this regard for review whether the said order of marking the document be reviewed in view of the operation of the specific bar under the provisions of the Act both in relation to the impounding of the documents and also relating to the element of fraud and the powers of the Court either to review or to recall its own orders. Reliance was placed on several decisions in A. Achiar v. Custodian, e. P. , K. Santhakumari v. K. Suseela devi Rachakonda Ramakoteswara Rao v. M/s. Manohar Fuel Centre, N. Venkata Subba reddy v. SK. Mohammed Hussain, M. A bhupathi v. M. Koteswara Mudali, Sanjeeva reddy v. Johanputra Reddy, Gulam Hussain v. Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, Ram Rattan v. Bajrang Lal B. V. R. Reddy v. Adoni Cooperative central Stores Limited, Chintalapudi annapurnamma v. Andukuripunnayya Sastry, malaysian Airlines Systems Bhd v. M/s. Stic travels (P) Ltd. , C. Ramachandra Naidu v. M. Rajamma, Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue divisional Officer, madanpalle, Indian Bank v. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. , State of west Bengal and another v. Arun Kumar Basu and another and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri devi and others. ( 7 ) IN Ism Fatima s case (3 supra), the Apex court while dealing with scope and ambit of section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 had observed as follows:". . . . . . . . Where a question as to the admissibility of a documents 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, the matter is closed. Sec. 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 a exhibit in the case. . . . . . . . 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 the witnesses, Sec. 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". ( 8 ) IT is not doubt true that an attempt was made to convince this Court that under peculiar circumstances Ex. A-5 was exhibited and hence, the Court below in fact had exercised its power to recall the said order by reviewing the order and in view of the same, the impugned order need not be interfered with. I am unable to accept the said contention for the reason that such reasons had not been recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order. I am unable to accept the said contention for the reason that such reasons had not been recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order. Apart from it, the presence of the counsel was noted on the said date in the open Court which cannot be doubted. ( 9 ) IN view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that no findings need be recorded in relation to these aspects, taking an objection immediately after marking the document filing a memo or the other contentions of the like nature raised by the respondent herein. In the light of the reasons recorded above, I have no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the learned Judge had committed an illegality in making the order impugned in the present Civil Revision petition. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the pesent Civil Revision petition shall stand allowed. No costs.