LAKSHAMANAN T C Vs. VANAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. The suit document dated 31.1.2007, according to the petitioner, is only an agreement. In the written statement the defendant contended that it is a bond and since it is insufficiently stamped it is inadmissible in evidence. No specific issue was raised at that time regarding the admissibility of the said document. During trial affidavit was filed by the plaintiff in lieu of chiefexamination. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before starting crossexamination no objection was raised by the defendant regarding the admissibility of the said document. It was marked as Ext.Al. Questions were also put to the plaintiff in crossexamination touching upon Ext.A1. After the evidence was closed the case was argued by both sides and was posted for judgment.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the learned Munsiff suo motu reopened the case and passed the impugned order impounding Ext.Al. The Court below came to the conclusion that though the document is styled as agreement the recitals would show that it is actually a bond. Learned counsel would submit that the Court below was not justified in passing the impugned order since Ext.Al was marked and admitted in evidence without any objection from the side of the defendants.

(3.) S.36 of the Indian Stamp Act reads as follows.