JUDGMENT Sapru, J. - The defendants are the applicants in this revision. The suit out of which this revision arises was brought by the plaintiff Anjuman Islamia, Muzaffarnagar which is a registered body under Act 21 [XXI] of 1860 for possession of the Islamia School, Muzaffarnagar and various other reliefs. The plaintiff's allegation was that it represented a properly constituted body to manage the institution that the defendants had, indeed, been managing the institution under its direction and that they had been removed from the management of it at a properly constituted meeting. The plaintiffs further stated that they were still persisting to continue to manage the institution and had wanted to be placed in charge of the school building, papers and register relating to the institution. The suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction of the Court at Rs. 6000 and for purposes of payment of court-fee at RS. 400. Objection appears to have been taken by the defendants to the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs in the suit on the ground of undervaluation of a portion of the property in suit. 2. The learned Civil Judge, while upholding the objection of the defendants as regards valuation, has rejected it with regard to the amount of court-fee paid. The defendants applicants seek to have this order revised by this Court. 3. The law prior to Certain amendments with which we shall deal presently allowed a party to challenge the validity of the order directing payment of court-fee when the whole case came up in appeal but as the amount of court-fee payable by the suitor was greatly enhanced, the Legislature stepped in with a special provision and allowed the party who was called upon to make good the deficiency, a special right to challenge the propriety of the order as soon as it was passed. But this was, however, a provision specially made for the party who was called upon to pay the court-fee, but his rival cannot avail himself of this provision. But this was, however, a provision specially made for the party who was called upon to pay the court-fee, but his rival cannot avail himself of this provision. This, in our opinion, is clear from S. 6A, Court-fees Act which is as follows: Any person called upon to make good a deficiency in court-fee may appeal against such order as if it were an order appeasable under S. 104, Civil P.C. The party appealing shall file with the memorandum of appeal, a certified copy of the plaint together with that of the order appealed against. The order directing payment of court-fee does not find a place in S. 104, Civil P.C. 4. It is obvious that the present applicant is not the person "called upon to make good a deficiency in court-fee." The defendants have no locus standi to challenge the order. It has been urged before us that if the applicants cannot avail themselves of S. 6A, Court-fees Act, the further question is whether a revision lies at all. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon Mt. Mohri Kunwar Vs. B. Keshri Chandra, AIR 1941 All 298 in support of his contention that the order, apart from the provisions of S. 6A, Court fees Act, amounts to a "case decided" and is, therefore, open to revision. That was a case where the party who had been called upon to make good the deficiency had preferred an appeal. He had a right to do it. The learned Judges thought if he had a right of appeal, he had ft right of revision too. If, however, they intended to hold that the order amounted, otherwise, to a "case decided," we do not see our way to agree with them. 6. An order demanding further court fee was at one time treated as a "case decided": ('33) Lakshmi Narain Rai Vs. Dip Narain Rai but the later Full Benches dissented from that view: ('34) Gupta and Co. Vs. Kripa Ram Brothers ('36) Mt. Suraj Pali Vs. Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha, AIR 1936 All 686 U.P. The result is that we dismiss the application with costs. 7. The record of the case shall go back to the Court below so that the proceedings in the suit may be started as soon as possible.