JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on the defect pointed by the office about the deficiency in the court fees and on application filed under Section 149 CPC. 2. It appears that a money decree of Rs.25,000/- was passed against the appellant. The appellant submitted the second appeal after a delay of one day. Along with the appeal, the appellant did not submit the requisite court fees stamps. The appellant submitted the court fees stamp of Rs.85/- only. 3. The appellant also submitted an application under Section 149 CPC stating therein that Rs.1585/- is not available with the appellant right now, therefore, the appellant is filing appeal with court fees of Rs.85/- only. The appellant submitted that the time may be allowed to the appellant to furnish the court fees within a period of one month. 4. The contents of the application itself shows that the appellant had full knowledge that the court fees payable was Rs.1585/-. He did not disclose any fact on the basis of which the appellant can seek any indulgence of the Court even for grant of time for one year. The only ground given is that the amount of Rs.1585/- is not available right now and there is no other ground. It is not the case of the appellant that he had no sufficient means to pay court fees of Rs.1585/- only. There is no explanation that even in 90 days, he could not manage Rs.1585/-. Not only above, in the application, the appellant sought time for filing court fees stamp within a period of one month whereas the deficiency was cured by furnishing court fees stamps on 14.5.2007 i.e. almost after 10 months. 5. In the totality, there is no reason for extension of time for furnishing the court fees stamp in peculiar facts of this case and it appears that the trial court passed the money decree of Rs.25,000/- only and that was upheld by the first appellate court and this is second appeal. 6. In view of the above, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed, hence, dismissed. Consequently, this second appeal is also dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appeal may be refunded the court fees stamps. 8. 6. In view of the above, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed, hence, dismissed. Consequently, this second appeal is also dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appeal may be refunded the court fees stamps. 8. I do not find any reason for refunding the court fees as for such a petty amount, this Court has been burdened and notice was issued to the respondent and the appeal could not have been dismissed because it was barred by one day.Appeal disposed of. *******