Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 7.4.2010 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur reviewed its own order dated 10.12.2007 and observed that the unregistered and insufficiently stamped document i.e. agreement to sell was not admissible in evidence. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that in a suit for specific performance of contract one document i.e. agreement to sell was tendered in evidence on 17.8.2004 and was marked as Ex.1. The plaintiff was subjected to cross-examination and thereafter the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. During the evidence of defendant, one application came to be filed by the defendant that the document i.e. agreement to sell Ex.1, was insufficiently stamped and as such it was not admissible in evidence under the provisions of law. The learned trial Court reviewed its own order dated 10.12.2007 and held that the document which was insufficiently stamped, was not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the provisions of Section 40 of Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 and contended that wherein an instrument had been admitted in evidence, such admission could not, except as provided in Section 71 of the Act be called in question at any stge of the same suit or proceeding, on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped. He cited one judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Shyamal Kumar Roy vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal reported in AIR 2007 SC 637 in support thereof. 4. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite the service of notice on respondent No.2. 5. Hence, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that one document i.e. agreement to sell was tendered in evidence on 17.8.2004 and exhibited and marked as Ex.1. The defendant, during the examination of plaintiff and his witnesses, did not raise any objection with regard to the inadmissibility of document i.e. agreement to sell. He filed an application under Section 151 of CPC at the stage when the defendant was subjected to cross-examination. The defendant, during the examination of plaintiff and his witnesses, did not raise any objection with regard to the inadmissibility of document i.e. agreement to sell. He filed an application under Section 151 of CPC at the stage when the defendant was subjected to cross-examination. In the matter of Shyamal Kumar Roy vs. Sushil Kumar Agrawal (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act, (which is analogous to Section 40 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998), provides for a 'stand alone' clause. It categorically prohibits a court of law from reopening a matter with regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument, in the event the same has been admitted in evidence. Only one exception has been made in this behalf, the provisions contained in Section 61 providing for reference and revision, in a case under Section 33 of the Act. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon the judgment in the case of Javer Chand & Ors. vs. Pukhraj Surana reported in AIR 1961 SC 1655 further held that 'once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that he 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 beyond 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 by a Court of superior jurisdiction. 7. Section 40 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 envisages as under : "40. 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 71 be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped." 8. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the document Ex.1 in question was tendered in evidence way back on 17.8.2004. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the document Ex.1 in question was tendered in evidence way back on 17.8.2004. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses was recorded and the evidence of the plaintiff was finally closed. At the stage, when defendant was subjected to cross-examination, the respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC imploring the Court to hold that the document i.e. agreement to sell (Ex.1) was not admissible in evidence as it was unregistered and insufficiently stamped. Learned trial Court reviewed its own order on 10.12.2007, whereas it was already held earlier that the admissibility or inadmissibility of the document shall be determined at the final stage when the suit was to be decided. The learned trial Court reviewed this order and further held that the document was unregistered and insufficiently stamped and could not be taken in evidence and it was thus, inadmissible. The approach of the learned trial Court seems to be totally contrary to law as also the loud pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Shyamal Kumar Roy vs. Sushil Kumar Agrawal (supra). 9. The impugned order dated 7.4.2010 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur is found to be perverse and per se illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur is set aside. 11. However, it is made clear that the admissibility or inadmissibility of the document i.e. agreement to sell (Ex.1) shall be determined by the learned trial Court while deciding the suit finally as already observed by the learned trial Court vide his order dated 10.12.2007.