JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel. 2. This is an application under Order 33 Rule 1 to maintain the appeal as a pauper or indigent person. 3. The reports of Collector, Banswara and Collector, Ratlam were called and the Collector, Banswara vide his letter dated 18th April, 2006 has reported that the firm M/s Rathore Industries, Banswara was run by the two partners Jagdish Chandra S/o Shri Mishri Lal and Radhey Shyam S/o Shri Mishri Lal, two brothers at Pilwa Industrial Area. The said partners live at Dilip Nagar, Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh) and they carry out the work of repairs of agricultural equipments, trolleys etc. at the aforesaid place. The decree against the present defendant-appellant is in favour of the Bank of Rajasthan, Banswara. From the report and application of the appellants, it also appears that the appellants have taken a loan of Rs.17,00,000/- from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation also for financing aforesaid business. It is also stated in the said application that on account of fire, the said industrial unit was damaged and the insurance claim of Rs.3,04,694/- was directly paid by the insurance company, to the mortgagee i.e. decree holder, Bank of Rajasthan. The respective Collectors, Collector Banswara and Ratlam have also given details of landed property and the business of the present appellant-defendant in which it is stated that approximately income of Rs.60,000/- per annum is earned by these two persons i.e. average monthly income of Rs.5,000/- is there for these two families. 4. The court fee on impugned decree of Rs.7,92,509/- comes to Rs.39,700/- which is sought to be exempted by the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Manjulata v. Sidhkaran, 2005 (1) CDR 1 (Raj.) in which the Court has held what is contemplated to be enquired under Order 33 Rule 1 are not ornaments or other immovable properties but it refers to the availability of liquid funds to pay the Court fees. 6. Having heard learned counsel and upon perusal of the respective reports and details of movable and immovable property of the present appellants, this Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case to allow the present application under Section 33 Rule 1 and exempt the payment of court fees by the present appellants. 6. Having heard learned counsel and upon perusal of the respective reports and details of movable and immovable property of the present appellants, this Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case to allow the present application under Section 33 Rule 1 and exempt the payment of court fees by the present appellants. The decrees on account of loan which the petitioner took from the Bank and also from the RFC (of course not subject matter of the decree as far as the RFC is concerned), the finance of business project which might have suffered a set back on account of fire as aforesaid, the public money of Bank and RFC which was given to the present appellants and was utilised for their business is also a consideration which has to be taken note of in such case. If the appellant-defendants want to pursue this appeal on merits they must pay the Court fees as per the provisions of the Court fees and Suit Valuation Act. The power to exempt the payment of Court fees has to be invoked for poor people who are without any means even to pay the court fees out of their movable property or income from immovable properties or respective business. This Court does not find any such circumstances in the present case which would impress the Court to exempt the Court fee in present case. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the application under Order 33 Rule 1 is rejected. 7. If the appellant deposits the prescribed court fees within four weeks from today, the appeal may be placed for admission before the Court, otherwise the appeal itself shall stand dismissed.Application rejected. *******