ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri L. Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Perused the records. 2. I.A. No. 10 came to be filed by writ petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1929/2006 by invoking Sections 33 and 58 of the Karnataka Stamps Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), read with Section 151 CPC for impounding sale agreement dated 01.06.1995 marked as Ex. D-2 produced by defendants on the ground of said document being insufficiently stamped. Said contention came to be adjudicated by trial Court after considering the objections filed to the said application by contesting defendants and on such adjudication, application came to be dismissed on the ground that said document was confronted by the counsel appearing on behalf of second defendant to P.W. 1 on 08.06.2012 and without there being any objection to marking of the said document it came to be marked and as such, Section 35 of the Act bars such contention being raised. 3. It is the contention of Sri L. Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that a party objecting to document being insufficiently stamped would be entitled to raise such defence even after such document is marked and Section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 does not place an absolute embargo. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of THE SECRETARY, FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, RANKA PLAZA APARTMENTS, BANGALORE vs. SMT. THAMBOOCHETTY AND OTHERS reported in 2015 (3) KCCR 2047 . 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, certain facts are required to be noticed and they read as under: Plaintiffs herein have filed a suit for declaring that sale deed dated 04.08.2003 executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant as void and not binding on plaintiffs and it is vitiated by fraud and consequential relief of perpetual injunction. 5. On service of suit summons second defendant filed written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint and specifically contending that plaintiff and his sons had executed an agreement of sale dated 01.06.1995 in favour of first defendant agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- advance and thereafter, had received balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 3,00,000/- and had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- advance and thereafter, had received balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It was also contended that plaintiffs had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of first defendant and he had in-turn executed the sale deed in favour of second defendant, which was now sought to be declared as null and void by plaintiffs. 6. On the basis of pleadings issues have been framed and parties have gone for trial. Third plaintiff had entered the witness box on behalf of plaintiff as P.W. 1. His deposition was recorded and on 08.06.2012 after completion of his further examination-in-chief he was cross-examined by second defendant's counsel and was confronted with the agreement of sale dated 01.06.1995 referred to herein supra and execution of said agreement came to be admitted by P.W. 1. As such, said document came to be marked as Ex. D-2. There was no resistance to the marking of said document. Deposition and order sheet does not indicate about any objection having been raised for marking of said document by the counsel appearing for plaintiffs. In this background, presumption that would arise is that there was no objection to the marking of said document and even otherwise, duty is cast upon the learned trial Judge to ascertain its admissibility in evidence and this also seems to have been considered by the trial Court. Raising of objection by either of the party or not, does not absolve the responsibility of Court to examine the admissibility of document in evidence. Section 33 of the Act casts a duty on the Court to examine the document when tendered in evidence to find out as to whether it is duly stamped or not, irrespective of fact whether objection to its marking is raised or not. However, it should be noticed that once document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be called in question, thereafter on the ground that it was not duly stamped. Section 35 of the Stamps Act, 1957 would be a complete answer to this proposition and this view is also supported by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of K. AMARNATH VS. SMT. PUTTAMMA reported in 2000 (4) KLJ 55. 7. Section 35 of the Stamps Act, 1957 would be a complete answer to this proposition and this view is also supported by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of K. AMARNATH VS. SMT. PUTTAMMA reported in 2000 (4) KLJ 55. 7. The judgment of THAMBOOCHETTY's case referred to supra and relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners would not come to his rescue in the background of facts obtained in the present case. It came to be noticed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in THAMBOOCHETTY'S case referred to supra that witness who had admitted the document was neither the author nor witness to the said document and as such, his admission would have no relevance with reference to Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It is in this background Coordinate Bench of this Court held that on account of document having been merely admitted in evidence would not prevent the contesting party to dispute the admissibility of said document by filing appropriate application. In the instant case, as already noticed hereinabove and at the cost of repetition it has to be held that third plaintiff - P.W. 1 who was confronted with the documents in question is a signatory to Ex. D-2 and as such, it was confronted to him in his cross-examination and when said document was confronted he knew as to what was the content of said document. He does not say in his evidence about contents of document - Ex. D-2 having not been read to him or contents of it having not been understood by him. Counsel who was representing the witness P.W. 1 has not objected to the marking of said document. In conclusion it can be said that both P.W. 1 as well as counsel who represented him with their eyes wide open have consented for marking of this document or had not opposed marking of this document as Ex. D-2. 8. Counsel who was representing the witness P.W. 1 has not objected to the marking of said document. In conclusion it can be said that both P.W. 1 as well as counsel who represented him with their eyes wide open have consented for marking of this document or had not opposed marking of this document as Ex. D-2. 8. Though Sri Harish Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners would raise a contention before this Court to the effect that such objection was raised and judicial note was not taken, requires to be considered with utmost circumspection for reasons more than one; firstly, order sheet or deposition does not indicate about such objection having been raised; secondly, nothing prevented P.W. 1 to immediately thereafter file an affidavit either in the Court or in the registry explaining the circumstances that unfolded during marking of Ex. D-2 on 08.06.2012; and thirdly, after lapse of 16 months application in question has been filed seeking for impounding of this document and for the first time in the affidavit supporting the said application it was contended that such objection was raised for marking of document, which trial Court has rightly rejected. 9. For these myriad reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. Hence, petition stands rejected. Order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli in O.S. No. 1929/2006, rejecting I.A. No. 10, Annexure-G, stands affirmed.