Courts must judicially determine an instrument’s stamp admissibility, regardless of whether a party objects.

The plaintiff applied under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC to have Exhibit D5 rejected or removed, alleging that it was inadmissible because it was insufficiently stamped.

The trial court had marked the document during the defendants’ evidence without objection from the plaintiff.

It later allowed the application, held Exhibit D5 inadmissible and expunged it from the record.

Defendant No. 4 challenged that order under Article 227, arguing that the trial court had neither judicially determined admissibility when the document was tendered nor properly considered the issue before expunging it.

Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 require a court authorised to receive an instrument in evidence to determine whether it is duly stamped and, where required, to impound it; that duty applies whether or not a party objects.

Under Section 35, once an instrument’s admissibility is judicially determined and it is admitted, its admissibility cannot later be questioned on the ground of insufficient stamping, subject to the statutory remedy.

The Court relied on G.M. Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde, (2024) 7 SCC 719, which affirmed the need for judicial determination under the Stamp Act, and Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, (1962) 2 SCR 333, AIR 1961 SC 1655, on the finality of a decision admitting a document once the relevant statutory bar applies.

The plaintiff’s failure to object when Exhibit D5 was marked did not relieve the trial court of its statutory duty to determine whether the instrument was duly stamped.

The court was required to decide that question judicially when the document was tendered; the absence of an objection did not justify its mechanical admission.

The trial court subsequently expunged the document without addressing its admissibility and stamping status in accordance with Sections 33 and 34.

Although the trial court could reconsider the marking because no judicial determination had been made, it could not properly resolve the matter by expunging the document without that determination.

It directed the trial court to determine whether Exhibit D5 was duly stamped and admissible, and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.