( 1. ) THIS is a defendants revision from an order passed by the additional Civil Judge Class II, Shivpuri on 9-10-1982 in C. S. No. 5-A /82 holding that a memorandum of partition dated 24-9-1979 relied on by the plaintiff is duly stamped.

( 2. ) THE plaintiffs learned counsel has taken a preliminary objection that the revision is not tenable. The first limb of the argument in support of the objection is that the matter stands concluded by this Courts order dated 26-4-1982 in C. R. No. 113/82 by which it was held that the instrument in question needed no registration. That revision was preferred by the plaintiff (non-applicant here) against an order passed by the Trial court on 5-11-1981 holding that the instrument was inadmissible for want of registration and also required stamp.

( 3. ) A copy of the order dated 26-4-1982 of this Court was shown to me. No doubt the order shows that the revision was allowed. There is, however, nothing in the order that the parties had made any submission to this Court, on the matter of stamp duty. Hence the question of stamp duty cannot be said to have been concluded by the order dated 26-4-1982.

( 4. ) THE second limb of the argument is th