JUDGMENT : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 24.6.2019 passed by the 6th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Exh-553 in Special Civil Suit No. 78/2000 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for de-exhibiting documents has been rejected, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 herein has filed the aforesaid suit for the specific performance of contract against the present petitioner and other respondents wherein earlier the original plaintiff-respondent no. 1 herein has moved an application Exh-382 for exhibiting the documents mentioned in the said application, which was partly allowed by trial Court on 19.9.2011. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 has also filed another application Exh-396 for exhibiting the documents, which were referred to in earlier application Exh-382, which was also rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 9.12.2011. It is contended that against that order the plaintiff has filed Special Civil Application No. 18870 of 2011 before this Court wherein this Court has passed following order: "2. ...In light of the statement made at bar, the petitioner- plaintiff is directed to take recourse to pay the sufficient stamp duty under the provisions of the Act in accordance with law and such procedure shall be undertaken within two weeks. After completion of the formalities under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner- plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh application for exhibiting and admission of the document in question. As and when such application is moved, the learned trial Judge shall decide the same in accordance with law and after hearing aforesaid procedure within two weeks, in that event, the learned trial Judge shall not adjourn the hearing of the suit, even on account of pendency of procedure before the Collector. With these observations and directions, present petition is disposed of." 3. It is contended by the petitioner that thereafter the respondent no. 1 i.e. plaintiff submitted purshis along with application addressed to the Collector, Stamp Duty dated 14.12.2016 for impounding the documents, which is still pending with the Collector, Stamp Duty, Rajkot. It is also contended that after the evidence of the plaintiff i.e. respondent no. 1 was over, the respondent no. 2 i.e. original defendant no. 1 i.e. plaintiff submitted purshis along with application addressed to the Collector, Stamp Duty dated 14.12.2016 for impounding the documents, which is still pending with the Collector, Stamp Duty, Rajkot. It is also contended that after the evidence of the plaintiff i.e. respondent no. 1 was over, the respondent no. 2 i.e. original defendant no. 8 filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 2.4.2018/1.5.2018 at Exh-542. Thereafter in the absence of the petitioner's advocate, cross examination of the respondent no. 1-plaintiff was made. It is contended that respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are supporting each other and got the documents at Exh-388/1 exhibited in the evidence in absence of the petitioner's advocate. It is contended that since the documents were not earlier exhibited by the trial Court twice, it is contended that therefore the advocate for the petitioner has submitted an application on the same day for de-exhibiting the document which is exhibited at Exh-548, the said application was given Exh-553 and Exh-553 was kept for hearing at the relevant time. After hearing, the learned Judge has rejected the said application. It is the contention of the petitioner that when the documents were not exhibited twice, it should not have been exhibited during the cross-examination of the respondent no. 1. According to them, the documents in question cannot be exhibited but the trial Court has failed to consider that earlier the documents were not exhibited twice. It is also contended that without deciding the objection of the other side, the document has been exhibited by the trial Court, which is legally not tenable. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the learned Judge is erroneous and has prayed to set-aside the order passed by the learned Judge and allow his application at Exh-553 and de-exhibit the document. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.R. Thacker for the petitioners and Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate for Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for respondents. I have perused the materials placed on record. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Thacker for the petitioners while referring the plaint has submitted that the defendant no. 8 is the Power of Attorney Holder of defendant nos. 1 to 7 and, plaintiff and defendant no. 8 are in collusion. According to him, the agreement to sell is insufficiently stamped. I have perused the materials placed on record. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Thacker for the petitioners while referring the plaint has submitted that the defendant no. 8 is the Power of Attorney Holder of defendant nos. 1 to 7 and, plaintiff and defendant no. 8 are in collusion. According to him, the agreement to sell is insufficiently stamped. He has also contended that the agreement to sell being on insufficiently stamped, it cannot be exhibited in evidence and earlier the trial Court has twice rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for exhibiting the same and against that order, the plaintiff has prayed the Collector for impounding the document within 2 weeks thereof and there was direction of this Court to the trial Court not to adjourn the matter even if the proceedings before the Collector is pending for impounding the document. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that during the cross-examination of defendant no. 8, and in absence of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the document in question i.e. agreement to sell has been got exhibited by the plaintiff and defendant no. 8 in collusion. According to him, the petitioner herein has immediately applied for de-exhibiting the document on the very same day, which was kept for hearing by the trial Court and thereafter the trial Court has rejected the application, which is under challenge. According to him, the trial Court has committed serious error in exhibiting the document. According to him, when there was question of stamp duty, the document could not have been exhibited in absence of sufficient Stamp duty. By relying on the decisions reported in (i) Ramniklal Shivlal Bavishi v. Tulsidas Chakubhai Gorvadiya, ( 2016 (1) GLR 624 ); and (ii) Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, ( AIR 2001 SC 1158 ) the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the document in question be de-exhibited on the ground of deficiency of stamp duty. 6. Per contra, Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the plaintiff has already moved an application, as directed by this Court in SCA No. 18870 of 2011, to the Collector for impounding the document and the Collector has not decided the same. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of plaintiff. She has also contended that once the document is exhibited, it cannot be called in question. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of plaintiff. She has also contended that once the document is exhibited, it cannot be called in question. She has also contended that this objection ought to have been taken at the time of deposition of defendant no. 8. She has also contended that the document is only exhibited, the question of admissibility in evidence is yet to be decided and it has to be proved by leading evidence. She has also contended that under the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere with the order of the trial Court in exhibiting the document in question. Relying on the following decisions, she has prayed to dismiss the present petition. (1) Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana ( AIR 1961 SC 1655 ); (2) J.M.A Raju v. Krishnamurthy Bhatt ( 1976 GLR 210 ); (3) Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum & Anr [2002 (3) A.P.L.J 40 (HC)] 7. In rejoinder, Mr. Thacker learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the decision relied upon by other side are not applicable to the facts of the present case. He has also submitted that only tentative exhibit may be given to the document in question. 8. In case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (Supra), in para-14, the Apex Court has held as under: "..Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item or oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such a course excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed." 9. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed." 9. In case of Ramniklal Shivlal Bavishi v. Tulsidas Chakubhai Gorvadiya (supra) relying on the judgment in case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, this Court has observed in Para-13 as under: "(i) Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence, the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable, the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting such a course. However, if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections, the procedure suggested above can be followed. (ii) Objection as to the mode of proof falls within procedural law. Therefore, such objections can be waived. They have to be taken before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record (See Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure). (iii) Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:(i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enable the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. (iv) (i) objection to the document sought to be produced relating to the deficiency of stamp duty must be taken when the document is tendered in evidence and such objection must be judicially determined before it is marked as exhibit; (ii) objection relating to the proof of document of which admissibility is not in dispute must be taken and judicially determined when it is marked as exhibit; and (iii) objection to the document which in itself is inadmissible in evidence can be admitted at any stage of the suit reserving decision on question until final judgment in the case". 10. In the case of Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana (Supra) which is related to Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, it has been observed that once the Court rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence so far as the parties are concerned the matter is closed. 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, Section 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. 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, 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 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. 11. In case of J.M.A Raju v. Krishnamurthy Bhatt (Supra), the full bench of this Court has observed in Para-8 that once the trial Court decides to admit a document as properly or sufficiently stamped the decision has to be accepted as final and the matter has to be treated as closed and it is not open to any superior Court either in appeal or revision to sit in judgment over the decision to admit the document in evidence or to review judicially the decision of the trial Court to admit the document in evidence. That the bar of Section 36 of the Stamp Act applied only to the decision of the trial Court to admit the document in evidence. If the trial Court decides not to admit a particular document in evidence it is always open to the aggrieved party to make it a ground of appeal before the Court of Appeal and get the matter decided by the appellate court. But so far as the decision to admit the document on record is concerned once the trial Court rightly or wrongly decides to admit the document in evidence in the sense in which the Supreme Court explained that phrase in Javer Chand V/s. Pukhraj Surana (supra) the matter so far as the parties are concerned is closed. 12. In the case of Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum & Anr (supra) the AP High Court has held that it is settled principle of law that once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, there cannot be any challenge as to its admissibility subsequently. 13. 12. In the case of Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum & Anr (supra) the AP High Court has held that it is settled principle of law that once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, there cannot be any challenge as to its admissibility subsequently. 13. Now considering the averment on behalf of parties and considering the material placed on record it is admitted fact that only and only on two occasion the trial Court has declined to exhibit the document i.e. agreement to sell be exhibited in evidence. Against the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff i.e. respondent no. 1 herein has moved this Court by filing SCA No. 18870 of 2011, which has been disposed of by this Court by issuing following direction:-. "1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 09/12/2011, passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below exh. 396 in Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 2000 to the extent denying to exhibit the document, Mark 4/1. 2. Upon hearing the submissions made at bar it appears that the learned trial Judge has refused to exhibit the document, Mark 4/1 on the ground that the document is insufficiently stamped. At the same time, the plaintiff also showed readiness to pay the insufficient stamp duty but no procedure was undertaken as required under the provisions of the Stamp Act (for short, 'the Act') at the end of the plaintiff. During the course of hearing, learned advocate Mr. Pahwa for the petitioner stated at bar that the petitioner is ready to undertake the procedure prescribed under the Act for paying the sufficient stamp duty in accordance with law and that to be fixed by the competent authority under the Act. In light of the statement made at bar, the petitioner - plaintiff is directed to take recourse to pay the sufficient stamp duty under the provisions of the Act in accordance with law and such procedure shall be undertaken within two weeks. After completion of the formalities under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner - plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh application for exhibiting and admission of the document in question. As and when such application is moved, the learned trial Judge shall decide the same in accordance with law and after hearing both the sides. After completion of the formalities under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner - plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh application for exhibiting and admission of the document in question. As and when such application is moved, the learned trial Judge shall decide the same in accordance with law and after hearing both the sides. If the petitioner fails to undertake the aforesaid procedure within two weeks, in that event, the learned trial Judge shall not adjourn the hearing of the suit, even on account of pendency of procedure before the Collector. With these observations and directions, present petition is disposed of". 14. It appears from the record that in view of the direction, the plaintiff has filed a Purshis with the copy of the application addressed to the Collector for impounding the document within stipulated period. Thus, the plaintiff has taken steps in compliance with the order of this Court for payment of requisite stamp duty. It also appears from the record that during the course of cross-examination of the defendant no. 8, at the instance of plaintiff, the agreement to sell has been got exhibited in absence of advocate for the petitioner. It is also admitted fact that on the same day the advocate for the petitioner has moved an application for de-exhibiting and the same was kept for hearing and ultimately by the impugned order, the application has been rejected. On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the defendant no. 8 has executed the agreement to sell and has also admitted that he has executed the same in favour of the plaintiff. The only question is regarding the insufficient stamp for which the plaintiff has already moved competent authority for impounding the document. As the authority has not acted within the time limit, it is not the fault of the plaintiff. 15. It is pertinent to note that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Javer Chand V/s. Pukhraj Surana (supra), which has been relied on by the full bench of this Court, in the case of J.M.A Raju v. Krishnamurthy Bhatt (Supra), once the document is admitted in evidence rightly or wrongly by the trial Court, the Appellate Court or revisional Court cannot go beyond that order of the trial Court admitting the document. 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. Therefore considering this well settled principle of law, the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous. Mere exhibiting the document does not prove the case itself. The parties will have an opportunity to place further evidence in the matter. No prejudice will be caused to the applicant merely because the document in question has been exhibited. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and legal preposition as referred to in aforesaid decision, the impugned order of the trial Court is sustainable in the eyes of law. It does not warrant any interference. 16. In view of the above, present petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to cost.