ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner against the order dated 16.2.2024 (Annexure P/1) recorded in paragraph No.8 of deposition of DW/1, Bhanwarlal whereby his objection to the admissibility of document dated 1.12.1997 on the ground of the same being deficiently stamped and being unregistered has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff has instituted an action against defendants for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction with respect to the suit lands. Defendant No.1 has contested the plaintiff's claim by filing his written statement. Upon pleading of the parties, issues were framed by the trial Court and thereafter the case was fixed for recording of plaintiff's evidence. 3. The examination of plaintiff as PW/1 was then conducted. During his cross-examination, he was confronted under Order XIII Rule 3 (a) of the CPC with a document dated 1.12.1997 which he denied. The said document was marked as Exhibit D/10 by the trial Court. 4. Upon closure of plaintiff's evidence, the case was fixed for defendants' evidence after which defendant No.1 was examined as DW/1. During his examination, he sought to prove the document dated 1.12.1997. The plaintiff raised an objection submitting that the document is a sale-deed and is deficiently stamped and is also unregistered though the same was compulsorily required to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act, hence is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. The trial Court has rejected the said objection by observing that the document has already been exhibited during plaintiff's examination without any objection by him hence at this stage his objection is not tenable. The plaintiff ought to have raised objection as regards admissibility of the document at the earliest stage and having failed to do so, cannot do so now. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. 6. The objection of plaintiff to the admissibility of the document has presumably been rejected by the trial Court in view of provision of section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, which is as 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." 7. 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." 7. In Ram Rattan (dead) by L.Rs.v. Bajrang Lal and Others 1978 (3) SCC 236 the apex Court has held that if after applying mind to rival contentions, the trial Court admits a document in evidence, section 36 of the Stamp Act would come into play and such admission cannot be called in question at a later stage of the suit. Where a document has been inadvertently admitted without the Court applying its mind as to the question of its admissibility, the instrument could not be said to have been admitted in evidence with a view to attracting section 36. 8. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another 2003 (8) SCC 752 it has been further held by the apex Court that the objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground that the same is inadmissible by itself can be raised even after the document has been marked as an exhibit or even in appeal or revision. It has been held as under:- "20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras [ AIR 1966 SC 1457 ] in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the above said case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. 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 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. ----------------- Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior Court." 9. In the present case at the time of recording of evidence of plaintiff, the document dated 1.12.1997 was confronted with by defendant No.1 to him and questions in regard to the same were asked. The document was marked as Exhibit D/10 by the trial Court. However, from a perusal of the entire paragraph No.30 of deposition of plaintiff as PW/1, it does not appear that the trial Court applied its mind whatsoever to the admissibility of the said document. The document having been confronted with plaintiff was marked as an exhibit without considering its admissibility. The question of admissibility of the document on the ground of the same being deficiently stamped and being unregistered was mandatorily required to be considered by the trial Court even if objection in that regard had not been taken by the plaintiff at the time it was marked as an exhibit. 10. The trial Court did not apply its mind to admissibility of the document dated 1.12.1997 before marking the same as an exhibit. Section 36 of the Stamp Act would hence not come into play at all and the plaintiff would not be precluded from raising objection as regards its admissibility. 10. The trial Court did not apply its mind to admissibility of the document dated 1.12.1997 before marking the same as an exhibit. Section 36 of the Stamp Act would hence not come into play at all and the plaintiff would not be precluded from raising objection as regards its admissibility. The said issue was legally permissible to be raised at the time when the said document was sought to be proved by defendant No.1 during his examination in chief. The trial Court has erred in rejecting the objection of the plaintiff only on the ground that no such objection was taken by him at the time of the document being marked as an exhibit. 11. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court in paragraph No.8 of the deposition of DW/1, Bhanwarlal as regards admissibility of the document dated 1.12.1997 is hereby set aside and it is directed to decide the objection of the plaintiff in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed and disposed off.