JUDGMENT : - S.N.Srivastava 1. THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.3.1990 passed by District Judge, Allahabad dismissing the revision preferred against order dated 19.4.1989 passed by Munsif (West) in Original Suit No. 192 of 1988. 2. PLAINTIFF filed a suit for ejectment of defendant No. 1 from a portion of House No. 840, Old Katra, University Road, Allahabad, for pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 41.70 per month. Plaintiff filed a document i.e., 18 Ga in support of his case during the statement of P.W. 1. The defendant raised an objection about the documents on the ground that it is an instrument of partition and is inadmissible under Section 2 (15) of Stamp Act as no Stamp Duty was paid. This document may be impounded. 3. THE trial court by the order dated 19.4.1989, held that the document 18 Ga is a memorandum of partition and is admissible in evidence. It is not a document of instrument of partition. Against the said order, a revision was preferred by the defendant. THE revisional court held that no revision under Section 61 of Stamp Act lies. It further held that revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable as order impugned is not a 'case decided'. Against the aforesaid order, this writ petition has been filed. 4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that revision lay against the impugned order. Document requires compulsory registration and was inadmissible for evidence. Order passed by trial court admitting a document as admissible in law being memorandum of partition is a 'case decided' and the District Judge erred in law in dismissing the revision as not maintainable. He relied on : (1) Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig, F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 . (2) Shah Prabhu Das Ishwar Das v. Coparceners of a Joint Hindu Family of Shah Bhogilal Nathalal and others, AIR 1968 Guj 236 . Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the order passed by trial court was interlocutory order. Admitting certain document in evidence, is not a 'case decided' and revisional court has rightly held so. He further urged that none of the cases cited above by learned counsel for the petitioner has application in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the order passed by trial court was interlocutory order. Admitting certain document in evidence, is not a 'case decided' and revisional court has rightly held so. He further urged that none of the cases cited above by learned counsel for the petitioner has application in the present case. 5. AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by trial court was an interlocutory order and does not come within the definition of 'case decided'. The District Judge rightly held that no revision lay under Section 115, C.P.C. 6. MAJOR S. S. Khanna v. Brig, F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 , is not applicable on fact. In this case, issue was framed 'whether suit is maintainable and plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this suit'. The trial court decided that suit was not maintainable. The High Court reversed the finding in revision which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Similarly, another case of Shah Prabhu Das Ishwar Das v. Coparceners of a Joint Hindu Family of Shah Bhogilal Nathalal and others, AIR 1968 Guj 236 , does not help the petitioner. In that case Exhibits 4/1 and 4/2 were tendered in evidence. The trial court held that the document was inadmissible in evidence. Against this order, revision was preferred. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that the ground contained in Section 115 of C.P.C. is not available to him as the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and dismissed revision. 7. THE order passed by trial court accepting a document in evidence filed during evidence of a witness and rejecting objection of defendant about its admissibility is not a 'case decided'. THE revisional court rightly held that revision not maintainable under Section 115 of C.P.C. 8. THE writ petition fails and is dismissed. Stay order is discharged. The suit was filed in the year, 1988 and is pending for the last 14 years. The petitioner got the proceeding of the trial court stayed for about 12 years in High Court. I direct the trial court to decide the suit itself within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order on day-to-day basis.