ORDER

1. This rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why two orders of the District Judge of Hooghly dated 7th June 1933 and 11th July 1933 should not be set aside. The order of 7th June was that the suit must be valued at the valuation of the decree itself and in that view the learned District Judge allowed the petitioners time for six weeks in which to pay the deficit court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 13,000 and he further directed that if the petitioners complied with this order they would be permitted to proceed with the suit, otherwise the appeal would stand dismissed with costs. The petitioners failed to comply with this order and then the learned District Judge on 11th July 1933 dismissed the petitioners' appeal with costs and he added that the petitioners were liable to pay Rs. 242-8-0 as additional court fees for the appeal to the Government.

2. A preliminary point has been taken in opposing this rule, namely, that a second appeal lies against the order of the learned District Judge and that therefore this application in revision is not maintainable. This appears to be correct. A contrary ruling has been referred to by the petitioners, namely, the ca