1. This memorandum of civil revision is directed against the fair and decretal Order dated 06.10.2007 and made in I.A.No.260 of 2007 in A.S.No.17 of 2007, on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode.

2. The background facts:

2.1. The revision petitioners herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.183 of 2005, on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode against the first respondent herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the property and also permanent injunction restraining the respondents from encumbering the suit properties till the partition is effected.

2.2. The suit was decreed and therefore the respondents being the defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.17 of 2007, on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode.

2.3. During the course of trial, a partition agreement dated 29.03.2005, which is said to have been executed between the first respondent and the revision petitioners, was marked as Ex.B1. Since the revision petitioners had denied their thumb impression and signatures found place in the above said document, the respondents had taken out an interlocutory application in I.A.No.250 of 2007 to send Ex.B1 the so called partition agreement to a Government finger print expert to examine the genuineness of the disputed thumb impression found place in the document and to compare the same with the admitted left hand thumb impression of the first revision petitioner Chinnammal. That application was dismissed and the order of dismissal was challenged by the respondents before this Court in C.R.P.(NPD).No.1517 of 2006.

2.4. After hearing both sides this Court has dismissed that revision petition on 07.11.2006.

2.5. In the meanwhile, a preliminary decree was passed in the suit in O.S.No.183 of 2005 by the Trial Court rejecting the document under Ex.B1 the alleged partition agreement on the ground of want of registration and proper stamp.

2.6. During the pendency of the appeal (A.S.No.17 of 2007), the respondents/ appellants/ defendants have preferred an interlocutory application in I.A.No.260 of 2007 to pass an Order for the payment of deficit stamp amount required to make up such duty together with a penalty of ten times of the amount of proper duty on Ex.B1. This was vehementally objected to by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and they have also filed their counter affidavit.

2.7. After hearing both sides, that interlocutory application was allowed on 06.10.2007 by the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode, with a finding that the respondents/appellants/defendants could be permitted to pay adequate stamp duty and also penalty as per the law.

2.8. Challenging the legality of the Order dated 06.10.2007, the revision petitioners being the plaintiffs have approached this Court with the present memorandum of civil revision.

3. Heard Mr. I.C. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. V. Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode while dismissing the application in I.A.No.25 of 2006 in O.S.No.183 of 2006 has found that the document under Ex.B1 could not be received in evidence for want of registration and payment of necessary stamp duty and therefore the controversy with regard to the question as to whether Ex.B1 contains the thumb impression of the first revision petitioner/first plaintiff or not has become pale into insignificance.

5. Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the Order of this Court dated 07.11.2006 and made in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1517 of 2006, reads as follows:

“8. A perusal of Ex.B1 the alleged partition agreement deed dated 29.03.2005 shows that even though it is titled as an agreement, the recitals would show that it is a partition and division of the properties by metes and bounds with specific boundaries and survey numbers. The substance of Ex.B1 is that a partition by