ORDER Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is a defendant. He is primarily aggrieved against the order dated February 16, 2004, vide which the learned first appellate court had declined to treat the defendant as an indigent person. Subsequently since the defendant failed to make the payment of court fee, the appeal filed by him was also dismissed for want of requisite court fee vide order dated March 6, 2004. The petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders by way of present revision petition. 2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner presses the present revision petition only for grant of time to pay the requisite court fee in the appeal before the learned first appellate court. He accordingly prays that the requisite court fee shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of one month from today. 3. Sh. S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, However, contends that a suit under Order 37 of the Ccode of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff which had been decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated March 3, 2003. Accordingly it has been contended that the plaintiff decree bolder has not enjoyed the fruit of decree for a period of more than two years. He further informs the court that the execution of the aforesaid-money decree has been stayed by this court vide order dated April 22, 2004, in the present revision petition. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I feel that one last opportunity should be granted to the defendant petitioner to make good the payment of court fee in this case. However, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the appeal is being filed by the defendant only against a money decree. In these circumstances I leave it open to the learned first appellate court to decide as to whether the aforesaid money decree is liable to be stayed or not. 5. However, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the appeal is being filed by the defendant only against a money decree. In these circumstances I leave it open to the learned first appellate court to decide as to whether the aforesaid money decree is liable to be stayed or not. 5. In these circumstances present revision petition is allowed to the limited extent that the defendant petitioner shall be entitled to make good the requisite court fee before the learned first appellate court within a period of one month from today, if the aforesaid requisite court fee is paid within aforesaid period then the appeal shall be heard on merits by the learned first appellate court as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before December 31, 2005. Consequently, the order dated March 6, 2004 passed by the learned first appellate court is set aside. However, it is made clear that if the requisite court fee is not paid by the petitioner/appellant within the aforesaid period then the present revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. Order accordingly.