Per Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Judgment dated 07.02.2005 passed by learned Single Judge in appeal No. 112/2004, where-under judgment and decree passed by learned trial court i.e. District Judge, Pulwama dated 20.5.2004 has been up-held, is subject matter of this LPA. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a vital point regarding maintainability of the suit as the document "Hundi" forming base of the suit according to him was inefficiently stamped, therefore, inadmissible in evidence as envisaged by Section 35 of the J&K stamp Act. Buttressing this argument, it is contended that the "Hundi" is written on a paper with impressed stamp of the value of Rs. 1/- when it ought to have been written on a paper with impressed stamp of the value or Rs. 2/-. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the judgment captioned Ghulam Ahmad Bhat v. Mohammad Shaban Gujri reported in SLJ 1983 J&K 217. 3. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether appellant can challenge the admissibility of the document i.e. "Hundi" on the count of being insufficiently stamped. 4. Secondly as to whether the "Hundi" available on the file which is written on the paper with impressed stamp of the value of Rs. 1/- to which another of the same value is attached can be termed to be insufficiently stamped. 5. Shorn of details factual matrix precisely is required to be noticed. 6. Respondent (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) has alleged in the plaint that the appellant (hereinafter referred as defendant) had taken debt of Rs. 1,30,000 from him on 27th of December, 2001. The defendant has executed a "Hundi" with a receipt wherein he has admitted the receipt of Rs. 1,30,000. On demand when defendant failed to pay the said amount, a notice was served upon him, still amount was not paid, therefore, based on "Hundi" suit was instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. While following the procedure prescribed for such suits, learned trial court granted leave to the defendant to defend, as a result thereof written statement was filed and trial was conducted. 7. On the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed which are reproduced as under: 1) Whether the defendant has taken the loan of Rs. While following the procedure prescribed for such suits, learned trial court granted leave to the defendant to defend, as a result thereof written statement was filed and trial was conducted. 7. On the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed which are reproduced as under: 1) Whether the defendant has taken the loan of Rs. 1,30,000 from the plaintiff on 27.12.2001 for which defendant executed a Hundi and separate receipts marked as A1 and A2 on the file? (OPP) 2) Whether the defendant failed to repay the said amount on demand as promised and therefore a notice was issued to him dated 27.2.2002 under registered postal cover through advocate? (OPP) 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as order 37 of CPC is not applicable? (OPP) 4) Relief? (OP Parties) 8. The defendant in his written statement has alleged that he had no dealings with the plaintiff nor has any acquaintance with him, never met him in any connection. He has denied the execution of the document "Hundi", so has not raised objection vis-a-vis inadmissibility of the document on the count of being insufficiently stamped. 9. Both the parties have led evidence. Plaintiff in support of his case besides having himself appeared as a witness has produced witnesses, namely, Mohammad Ashraf Sheikh, Aziz Ganai and Ghulam Mohammad Mir Petition Writer who are witnesses to the document who have proved execution thereof. The witness petition writer in his deposition has also qualified that the document comprised of two leaves. On the second leave the content is recorded in Urdu which in English version reads "annexed to No. 89, bears the signature of the petition writer and the seal of the Notary." The first leave on its back side also bears the signature of the Notary where-under he has certified the execution of the document. 10. Defendant faced with the deposition of the witnesses and the position of the document when alone appeared himself as a witness has taken a different stand by stating that the plaintiff is known to him, Hundi bears his signature. One day he was at bus stand, Pulwama and found Ali Mohammad Gani (plaintiff) in a perturbed condition and on asking went to the Court where said Ali Mohammad took his signature on a blank paper. 11. One day he was at bus stand, Pulwama and found Ali Mohammad Gani (plaintiff) in a perturbed condition and on asking went to the Court where said Ali Mohammad took his signature on a blank paper. 11. The plaintiff as well as his witnesses were also cross examined by the counsel for the defendant. The document "Hundi" has been exhibited and marked as EXP-A. Questions regarding "Hundi" were put to the witnesses of the plaintiff both in examination-in-chief as well as in the cross examination. 12. The question regarding inadmissibility of the document has to be taken at the initial stage. Once the document has been used by the parties during examination as well as cross examination and exhibited, then at a later stage of the suit the question of inadmissibility and the document being insufficiently stamped is not available to the party (objector thereof) because Section 36 of the Stamp Act operates to the exclusion of Section 35 of the same Act. Section 36 is reproduced here-under:- "36. Admission of instrument where not to be questioned:- 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." 13. Similar question has been dealt with the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment captioned Javer Chand and others v. Pukharaj Surana reported in AIR 1961 SC 1655 , wherein after quoting Section 36 of the Stamp Act, Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled: "...... 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. Parties to a litigation, where such a controversy is raised had 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. 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 had 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. ........ 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, S.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 revisions 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." 14. Applying the principle as has been laid down, the objection raised regarding inadmissibility of the document on the court of document being insufficiently stamped is not available to the defendant. 15. The Division Bench judgment as relied by the learned counsel for the defendant is not applicable to the present case because it has distinct facts. In the reported judgment the learned Single Judge had dismissed the suit filed Order XXXVII on the ground that suit pronote was insufficiently stamped. In the reported judgment there was no trial and the document had not been exhibited. The parties had not used the paper during examination and cross examination, therefore, when the document was found to be on a paper insufficiently stamped, the suit was dismissed, whereas in the instant case after leave to defend, as stated above, there has been a trial and parties have used the document during examination as well as cross examination, therefore, Section 36 operated to the exclusion of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. 16. 16. Though on the afore-stated legal position appeal fails, still it shall be appropriate to notice as to whether "Hundi" was written on insufficiently stamper paper, that too in contravention of Section 13 of the Stamp Act. The original "Hundi" is available on the trial court record. It is noticed that on the front of the said paper contents of the deed are written and petition writer has given No. 89 to the said document whereas on the annexed paper of the same value without leaving any margin it is recorded as attached to No.89, same bears the name and seal of the petition writer and also of the Notary. 17. Section 13 of the stamp Act provides that the instrument shall be written in such a manner that the stamp may appear on the face of the instrument and cannot be used for or applied to any other instrument. It is also provided that where stamp duty payable in respect of an instrument is made on two or more papers stamped with impressed stamp, the instrument shall be written in such a manner that some part of writing shall, as far as possible, appear on each paper so as to leave as few blank sheet as possible. Each blank sheet shall be dated and signed and shown as part of the instrument. 18. The document "Hundi" available on the file clearly indicates that it has been written in conformity with Section 13 and attached leave bears the number as well as name and signature of the petition writer, so there is no chance of reuse of the said paper nor is possibility of it being applied to any other instrument. On this count also the document cannot be said to have been written on an insufficiently stamped paper. 19. Learned trial court as well as appellate court have not noticed the applicability of Section 36 of the Stamp Act when for the stated reasons contention of the defendant regarding inadmissibility of the document should have been repelled alone on the same count. Cumulative effect is that for afore-stated position of facts and law the judgment impugned sustains. Resultantly appeal is dismissed. Trial Court record along with copy of the judgment be sent back.