JUDGMENT Agarwala, J. - This is an appeal against an order requiring the Plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court-fee of Rs. 878/2/ - on the plaint. 2. The Plaintiff-Appellant filed a suit for declaration and possession over certain properties. The disputed property included a certain house which the Plaintiff valued at Rs. 10,000/. According to the Defendant-Respondents its valuation was Rs. 20,000/ -. The Defendants relied on a settlement of 1929 in which the value of the house was shown as Rs. 20,000/ -. This document was, however, not on the file of the suit which has given rise to this appeal but was on the file of a connected suit both of which were being disposed of together. The court below fixed the value of the house at Rs. 20,000/ - basing its order upon the valuation given in the deed of settlement of 1929 and ordered the Plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court-fee. 3. In this appeal the Plaintiff has urged that the valuation fixed by the court below is erroneous inasmuch as there was no material on the record of the suit to show that its value was more than Rs. 10,000/ -. The Plaintiff-Appellant points out that a copy of the deed of settlement was not placed on the record of this case. 4. Learned Counsel for the Defendant-Respondents has urged that the Plaintiff is not entitled to dispute the valuation made by the court below as the finding of the court below is final between the parties. Learned Counsel refers to the provisions of Section 12 of the Court Fees Act. The first clause of Section 12 runs as follows: Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this Chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit. 5. This rule has an exception which is stated in the second clause of Section 12. 5. This rule has an exception which is stated in the second clause of Section 12. That clause empowers a Court of appeal, reference or revision to ask a party to make good the deficiency if the question of valuation had been wrongly decided by the Court below "to the detriment of the revenue." Thus Clause (ii) has no application when the error in the valuation is in favour of the State. We have, therefore, to consider the effect of Clause (i) of Section 12. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that the first clause of Section 12 should be considered subject to Section 6A which was subsequently added by an enactment of the U.P. Legislature. The relevant provisions of Section 6A are: Any person called upon to make good a deficiency in court-fee may appeal against such order as if it were an order appealable u/s 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The party appealing shall file with the memorandum of appeal, a certified copy of the plaint together with that of the order appealed against.... Section 12 is in the original Court Fees Act while Section 6A has been subsequently added by the U.P. Court Fees (Amendment) Act No. 19 of 1938. 7. An appeal means a rehearing of the matter by a higher Court, The appellate Court has ordinarily the same powers as the trial court. It would therefore appear that apart from the provisions of Section 12, in an appeal filed u/s 6A an Appellant could challenge the valuation of the property in dispute made by the trial court. But it is well known that the provisions of an Act are to be read together and harmonised so far as possible. Reading Sections 6A and 12 together the law seems to be that in an appeal filed u/s 6A the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit fixed by the court below cannot be challenged as the finding is final between the parties to the suit and that, therefore, the appeal u/s 6A must be heard on other points namely that a wrong provision of the Court Fees Act has been made applicable or that the court-fee has been wrongly calculated. It is rather surprising that the power of the appellate Court should be so circumscribed when hearing an appeal u/s 6A. It is rather surprising that the power of the appellate Court should be so circumscribed when hearing an appeal u/s 6A. It is quite possible that the U.P. Legislature in introducing Section 5A of the Court Fees Act never thought that the question of valuation will not be considered by the appellate Court. But a Court has to interpret the law as it stands and is not justified in speculating what the intention of the Legislature might have been. The intention of the Legislature has to be determined according to the provisions of the Act. I am, therefore, forced to the conclusion, though not without hesitation, that in an appeal u/s 6A the decision of the trial court relating to valuation of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of determining the amount of court-fee payable is final between the parties and cannot be challenged in appeal. The finality of the decision relating to valuation, however, does not take away the power of the High Court to interfere in exercise of its power u/s 115 of the CPC provided the decision of the court below amounted to a case decided. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that I can interfere in exercise of the power u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case it cannot be said that any case has been decided by the court below within the meaning of Section 115 as the suit is still pending in the court below and the rights of the parties in the case have not been determined. I have, therefore, no power to interfere with the valuation fixed by the court below in exercise of the power vested in me u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the execution of the deed of settlement of 1928 is not denied by the Appellant. The objection that a copy of the deed is not on the record is merely formal and the Court of revision need not interfere with the decision of the court below upon a mere technicality. I therefore decline to interfere u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. No other point has been urged in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.