1. The question raised in this case is whether this application for the restoration of Second Appeal no. 254 of 1949, which stood dismissed for failure to deposit deficit court-fees, is maintainable under Sec.151, Civil P. C., or can only be entertained as a petition in review,

2. The petitioners are tbe plaintiffs in a suit for partition. Their suit was decreed in part. The decree was upheld by the Court of first appeal. They then came in appeal to this Court. In the Courts below they paid merely a declaratory court-fee. The Stamp Reporter in this Court objected that, as regards a portion of tbe property forming the subject-matter of the suit, the suit was of the nature of a title suit, and therefore an ad valorem, court-fee was payable. The report was accepted by the Taxing Officer, and the necessary court-fees on the memorandum of appeal wag paid. When the appeal came before the Bench, the stamp report as to the liability to pay the deficit court-fee in the Courts below being accepted by the learned advocate for the appellants, a direction was made that, failing deposit of the deficit court-fee within two months the appeal would stand dismissed. This order has become fin