JUDGMENT 1. :- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In nut shell the case of the appellant is that amount of compensation for land acquired was enhanced by the civil Court but on the enhanced amount interest was not awarded by the civil Court. The appellant submitted application under Section 152 CPC before the Civil Court for making correction in award and to award interest on the enhanced amount of compensation in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Sunder v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516 and in the case of Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. v. S171. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., reported in (2007) 2 SCC 341 wherein it has been held that award of interest is automatic and it follows with the passing of the award in land acquisition matter. 3. According to appellant, the State preferred the appeal to challenge the order of the reference Court enhancing the compensation. That appeal was dismissed by this Court and SLP against the said order was also dismissed. 4. After dismissal of appeal by the High Court, the reference Court dismissed the appellant's application for grant of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation on the ground that the reference Court's order merged into appellate judgment and, therefore, the reference Court now cannot pass any order on application filed by the appellant for award of interest. 5. In view of the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the appellant though moved the application for getting relief of award of interest on enhanced amount of compensation before the reference Court, but before that could have been decided by the reference Court, the appeal preferred against the order of the reference Court was decided by this Court thereby the reference Court's original order merged in the appellate Court's order. 6. It is settled law that original order can be reviewed or modified only before appeal is decided by the appellate Court against the original order because of the reason that once the appellate Court passes any order then the original order merges in the appellate order and the original Court losses its jurisdiction to amend or alter or review the original order. The review and alternation can be made only by the appellate Court, Admittedly, in this case. The review and alternation can be made only by the appellate Court, Admittedly, in this case. appellant failed to obtain any order on his application submitted for review or modification of original award for getting interest from the original Court before the appeal could have been decided by the High Court. Non-award of interest by the reference Court may be an illegality' but that could have been corrected only in accordance with law and i.e. by reviewing the original order or by modification of the order by the appellate Court after merger of the order of original Court in appellate order. In this case, admittedly, appellant did not choose to prefer an appeal in time and could not obtain the order on his application for award of interest from the reference Court before appeal was decided by this Court against the original order. 7. Even if a right which is given by statutory provision and the benefit flowing from that statutory right has not been granted by the Court of law then that amounts to refusal of that relief and that may make the order illegal and that can be corrected only in accordance with law and it may be by reviewing of the order by the same Court or by the correction made by the appellate Court. Since in this case, petitioner failed to get relief from the original Court in time, which made the appellant's application infructuous and appellant did not prefer the appeal to challenge the original order, therefore, the learned single judge was right in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner. Not only this, the reference Court (Civil Court) could not have awarded the relief to petitioner on his application under Section 152 CPC as awarding of interest by Court when it has not been granted in original order is not a clerical or arithmetical correction. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant did not prefer the appeal to challenge the original award of reference Court, therefore, he may now be permitted to prefer an appeal against the original award. We unable to grant this relief also in view of the fact that original award was passed long ago and appeal against that award was dismissed by this Court and the original award also merged in the appellate order. We unable to grant this relief also in view of the fact that original award was passed long ago and appeal against that award was dismissed by this Court and the original award also merged in the appellate order. Therefore, there is no reason to observe that appellant may now prefer appeal. 9. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed *******