ORDER :- This is a revision filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order of the District Judge, Manipur, Imphal dated 28-3-66 in Civil Appeal No. 34/106 of 1962 on his file rejecting the plaint and setting aside the judgement and the decree in T.S. No. 37/11 of 1959 of First Subordinate Judge, Manipur, dated 28-2-62. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : (a) The petitioner filed T.S. No. 37/11 of 1959 on the file of the First Subordinate Judge in Imphal on 13-2-59 for recovery of possession of the suit land covered by patta No. 94/58 on the allegation that the land was gifted to him and that the tenants (defendants 1 and 2) agreed to deliver the land to him. His suit was filed against the defendants 1 and 2. He added the 3rd defendant on the ground that the defendants 1 and 2 entered into another agreement with him. The 4th defendant, who was a decree-holder against the 3rd defendant, attached the land in question and brought it to sale in Execution Case 58/1958. The 5th defendant purchased the suit land in the Court auction. So, the defendants 4 and 5 were also subsequently added by the petitioner in the trial Court, As the 5th defendant obtained possession of the suit land, the petitioner claimed possession of the same B from her. After contest, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. (b) The 5th defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 34/106 of 1962 on the file of District Judge, Manipur, against the judgement and decree of the trial Court. The District Judge transferred the appeal to the file of the Additional District Judge. At the time of the arguments, the Additional District Judge found that the petitioner did not pay additional Court-fee for declaration of title and possession as provided by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The Additional District Judge, therefore, directed the petitioner to revise the valuation of the relief claimed by him and to pay requisite Court fee by 13-5-63. Subsequently, he extended the time for payment of the deficit Court fee to 1-6-63. But, the petitioner did not pay the deficit Court fee and so the Additional District Judge rejected of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court. Subsequently, he extended the time for payment of the deficit Court fee to 1-6-63. But, the petitioner did not pay the deficit Court fee and so the Additional District Judge rejected of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court. (c) The petitioner, thereupon, filed Civil Revision Case No. 42 of 1963 in this Court of a to revise the order of the Additional District can Judge. This Court held on 29-3-65 that the P Additional District Judge was correct in holding that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act applies. As petitioner was prepared to pay the deficit Court fee, this Court however allowed the Revision Petition in the interests of justice and remanded the case to the Additional District Judge with a direction to permit the petitioner to pay the deficit Court-fee within 15 days from the date of receipt of the records. (d) But, without paying the deficit Court fee, the petitioner filed a petition before the present District Judge (who was the Additional District Judge when he disposed of the case) to review the order dated 17-4-63 passed by the same District Judge in his capacity as Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 34/106 of 1962. (e) The learned District Judge held on 21-2-1966 that his previous order became merged in the order of my learned predecessor dated 29-3-65 and that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for review. Accordingly, he dismissed the petition. Subsequently, he passed an order on 28-3-66 in Civil Appeal No. 34/106 of 1962 on his file rejecting the plaint and setting aside the judgement and the decree in T.S. No 37/11 of 1959 on the file of the First Subordinate Judge dated 28-2-62. 3. Being aggrieved with the orders of the District Judge, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition under S. 115 and Section 151 C.P.C. 4. The first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no merger of the order of the lower Court in the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 42 of 1963 by my learned predecessor and that the lower Court was competent to entertain the petition for review. He relied on Ganeshi Lal Kishna Lal v. Seth Mool Chand Nemi Chand, AIR 1935 All 435. He relied on Ganeshi Lal Kishna Lal v. Seth Mool Chand Nemi Chand, AIR 1935 All 435. In that case the Small Cause Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. A revision petition filed by the plaintiff against the judgement and decree has also dismissed by the High Court. Later on, the plaintiff filed an application in the Small Cause Court to review its judgement, on the ground that he subsequently discovered additional evidence, which was not discovered at the time of the trial of the suit. It was held that no ruling was cited to show that any High Court held that there is merger in the case of a High Court dismissing an application in revision and that, therefore, the Small Cause Court was competent to entertain the application to review the judgement. But, in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta, AIR 1963 SC 1124 , it was held that the principle that the appellate order is the operative order after the appeal is disposed of, is, the basis of the rule that the decree of the lower Court merges in the decree of the appellate Court and that on the same principle it would not be correct to say that the order of the original authority is merged in the order of the appellate authority, whatsoever its decisions be whether of reversal or modification of mere confirmation. In the present case, my learned predecessor held that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act applies. That decision is the final one. In effect the Petitioner's prayer in the petition for review was to review that order. The District Judge was not competent to review the judgement of this Court. So, he rightly held that the application for re view of the order regarding the valuation of the land in question and the payment of Court fee does not lie before him. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that since his prayer in the suit is one which falls under Order 21 Rule 63 C.P.C. to set aside the order of attachment and the sale of the land, fixed Court fee has to be paid under the provisions of Article 17 Schedule II of the Court Fee-Act and relied on Mr. Manik v. Ranjas Agar walla. Manik v. Ranjas Agar walla. AIR 1923 Pat 152, wherein it was held that, if the plaintiff sues for declaration under Order 21 Rule 63 C.P.C. against an order made under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. the Article 17 Schedule II of the Court Fees Act applies. It was also held that the fact that the property was actually sold two days later but before the suit was filed did not affect the nature and the scope of the suit. This decision has no application to the facts of this case. The petitioner filed T.S. No. 37/11 of 1959 on the file of the First Subordinate judge at Imphal for declaration of his title to the suit land even before he filed the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. Because decree-holder and the auction-purchaser as defendants 4 and 5 in the suit and claimed recovery of possession of the suit of the land was sold and delivered subsequently to the 5th defendant, the petitioner added the covery of possession of the suit land from the 5th defendant, So, it was not a suit filed at the outset under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 63 C.P.C. As such, the Additional District Judge and my learned predecessor were correct in holding that Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act is applicable. So, the petitioner should have paid deficit Court fee under the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. 6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned District Judge did not pass any order allowing or dismissing the appeal No. 34/106 of 196?., but that he simply rejected the plaint and that the order is revisable. It is very pertinent to note that the appeal was itself incompetent, inasmuch as the appellant in the lower Court did not pay sufficient Court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The learned District Judge should have first directed the appellant before him to make good the deficit Court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. After the deficit Court fee was paid, then only the District Judge could proceed further with the appeal. Then, he should have called upon the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to pay the deficit Court fee. After the deficit Court fee was paid, then only the District Judge could proceed further with the appeal. Then, he should have called upon the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to pay the deficit Court fee. If the petitioner failed to pay the deficit Court fee, he should have allowed the appeal and rejected the plaint. This is the correct procedure which should have been followed. If there was no proper appeal before him, he could not reject me plaint at all. So, the order of the learned District Judge in rejecting the plaint at the outset is not correct and is revisable. In Mani Lal v. Durga Prasad, AIR 1924 Pat 673, it was held that if the decision of the Court below involves the jurisdiction of that Court to try the matter, then his decision is liable to be revised. Vide also, Amba Shankat v. Mt. Seoti, AIR 1937 All 280 So. the order of the lower Court is not correct. 7. In the result, the order of the lower Court dated 28-3-66 in Civil Appeal No. 34/ 106 of 1962 rejecting the plaint and setting aside the judgement and decree in T.S. No. 37/11 of 1959 on the file of First Subordinate Judge, dated 28-2-62 is set aside. The learned District Judge is hereby directed to call for payment of deficit Court fee due as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act at first by the appellant before him. If the deficit Court fee is not paid by the appellant before him; then he should reject the appeal. But, if the appellant pay the deficit Court fee, the District Judge should call upon the plaintiff-respondent before him to pay the deficit Court feel. It the plaintiff fails to pay the deficit Court fee within the time given by the District Judge, then he should reject me plaint. Costs incurred by the parties in this Court should abide by and be provided for by the District Judge in his final Judgement and decree, revision petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.