ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, in C A. No. 61 of 1956, dated 13-12-1956, by which he refused to extend time under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. 2. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel on the opposite side, and which in my judgment must prevail. It is that this revision petition is incompetent, and the remedy of the petitioner lay in filing an appeal, because the order of the learned District Judge rejecting the appeal as time-barred amounted to a decree. There can be no doubt as to the correctness of this reasoning, because the decision given by the District Judge, conclusively determined the matter as far as he was concerned, within the meaning of the definition of "decree" in S. 2(2) C.P. Code. The decision in the case reported in Keshomal v. Panchulal AIR 1953 Ajmer 32 (A) with which I am in respectful agreement also supports that view. 3. In the circumstances, I would have allowed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner namely that if the revision petition is found incompetent, then he may be allowed to convert the revision into an appeal. But there also the matter is not so simple. The first appellate court did not draw up a decree and until that is done, the petitioner cannot have the right to prefer an appeal. 4. The matter was considered in a full bench case-of the Nagpur High Court, Baliram Ganpatrao v. Manohar Damodhar AIR 1943 Nag 204 (B) and the learned Judges decided that in no case, can a party come up in appeal unless a formal decree is drawn up and signed, and if the court refuses to draw up a decree on an application made by the party aggrieved, it could be set right in revision. I concur fully and with great respect with those observations. In view of the definition of "decree" and the provisions of Ss. 96 and 100 in the C.P. Code, it is not possible to accept any other contention. The petitioner cannot therefore be allowed to convert this revision petition into an appeal, and his only remedy is to approach the first appellate court with an application that a decree be drawn up. He can then only come up in appeal before this court. 5. The petitioner cannot therefore be allowed to convert this revision petition into an appeal, and his only remedy is to approach the first appellate court with an application that a decree be drawn up. He can then only come up in appeal before this court. 5. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order for costs. Revision dismissed.