THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4075 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur in I.A.No.95 of 2011 in O.S.No.7 of 2008 dated 29.07.2011. I.A.No.95 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner/second defendant, under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, “the Act”), to impound the document dated 29.09.2007 styled as “Oppudala Khararu” (Ex.A1), and the document dated 06.05.2000 styled as “Choopudayakamu” (Ex.A4) for Rs.4,50,000/-. Before the Court below the respondent-plaintiff contended that the documents in question i.e., Exs.A1 and A4 had already been marked and exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff; once a document has been admitted in evidence, it cannot be assailed as inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped; in the instant case, the documents in question have already been marked as Exs.A1 and A4 on behalf of the plaintiff after consideration as per orders in I.A.No.141 of 2010 in O.S.No.7 of 2008; and the petitioner- second defendant had no right to question admissibility of the documents, and to seek a direction that the respondent-plaintiff pay stamp duty and penalty. The Court below did not examine this question as it found Exs.A1 and A4 not to be “bonds”. Sri K. Sitaram, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-second defendant, would submit that the contents of document Ex.A1 would clearly show that it is an instrument attested by witnesses; the amount payable under the said instrument is not payable to order or bearer; and, under the said instrument, the petitioner-second defendant had obliged himself to pay money to the respondent-plaintiff and, as such, the instrument falls within the inclusive definition of “Bond” under Section 2 (5) (b) of the Act. Learned Counsel would rely on P. Srinivasa Babu v. M/s. AMR Consultants Limited (2008 (4) ALT 759) in this regard. On the other hand Sri R. Prasad, Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, would submit that, since both the documents i.e., Exs.A1 and A4 had already been admitted in evidence after consideration as per the orders in I.A.No.141 of 2010 in O.S.No.7 of 2008, the Court below could not have even examined the question as to whether the said instrument Ex.A1 was a bond or not. Learned Counsel would rely on the judgments of this Court in Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum (2002 (3) L.S. 149) and C. Prithvi Raj Reddy v. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (6) ALD 128) in support of his submission that since no objection had been raised by the petitioner-second defendant at the stage of marking of the documents by the respondent-plaintiff, he could not raise this objection, at a later stage, by way of an application under Section 35 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would also contend that the instrument Ex.A1 is not a bond since the Suit was filed for specific performance, and not for recovery of money. This contention urged before this Court by Sri R. Prasad, Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, though noted in paragraph No.3 of the order, has not been dealt with by the Court below presumably as the Court below was satisfied that Ex.A1 was not a bond necessitating its being impounded for non-payment of stamp duty. This objection should, however, have been examined at the first instance since the contention urged on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff is that, once the documents in question are marked, no objection could be raised thereafter regarding admissibility of the said documents for non-payment of stamp duty. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under revision; remand the matter back to the Court below for its consideration afresh, firstly on the question as to whether the application filed before it in I.A.No.95 of 2011 could have been entertained on the ground that the documents in question had already been marked earlier. In the event, the Court below is satisfied that such a contention can be entertained, then the question as to whether the instrument Ex.A1 would fall within the ambit of a bond, in a Suit for specific performance, shall also be examined. It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding on the question as to whether the instrument Ex.A1 is a bond or not, since this contention can as well be examined in the light of the judgment in P. Srinivasa Babu (1 supra) by the Court below. Since the suit relates to the year 2008 it is but appropriate that the Court below decides the I.A., in accordance with law, at the earliest in any event not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J November 04, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4075 OF 2011 November 04, 2011 MD