BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2016 whereby the learned single Judge refused to clarify/modify the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by another learned single Judge in IA No.6536/2016 which was an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the Registry is insisting that the decree followed by the order dated 23.05.2016 ought to be stamped as an instrument of partition under Section 2 (15) of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Schedule I of Article 45 thereof.

3. The case of the appellant as also of the respondents, who are all aggrieved, is that the decree which is to be drawn up pursuant to the order dated 23.05.2015 should not be construed as a decree of partition but as a declaratory decree. Their case is that although in the suit for the partition a preliminary decree had been passed, subsequently, the parties entered into an oral settlement and also divided the properties by metes and bounds without any written instrument. It is thereafter that the Memorandum of Understanding, for the reason of recording for posterity the terms of the settlement already arrived at, wa