ORDER

Civil Appeals Nos. 4823-28 of 1984

1. These six appeals arise out of the judgment rendered in Regular Second Appeal No. 251 of 1981 by learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 25-7-1984 which came to be followed in Second Appeals Nos. 252-56 of 1981. As the issue involved in these appeals is identical, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common order.

2. The factual matrix is that the appellants purchased different parcels of land situate in the city of Ambala under separate registered sale deeds. The respondent, who was tenant in respect of the said lands, instituted suits to enforce the right of pre-emption conferred by Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 as adopted in the State of Haryana under the Haryana Adaptation of Laws Order, 1968. The suits were decreed by separate judgments rendered on 30-9-1980. By the said judgment and decree the respondents right of pre-emption was recognised and he was granted time to deposit the court fee within one month and the remaining 4/5th sale price by 27 -11-1980. Admittedly, the respondent complied with these conditions within the time allowed by the decree.

3. It appears that in the meantime on 29-7-1980 the appellant landowners had instituted proceedings for eviction of the respondent from the lands in question under Section 9(1) read with Section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The application for eviction was accepted by an order dated 3-10-1980. This was subsequent to the pre-emption decree passed on 30-9-1980. The appellant landowners took possession of the land by evicting the respondent on 11-10-1980. Notwithstanding his eviction the respondent deposited the 4/5th amount pursuant to the decree of 30-9-1980 on 26-11-1980. The first appeal preferred by the appellants against the preemption decree was dismissed on 6-1-1981. On 28-7-1983 notification under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act was issued but the same came to be quashed on 2-2-1984. The regular second appeals which have given rise to these appeals were dismissed on 25-7-1984. Hence, the present appeals by special leave. It appears that in the meantime the State of Haryana issued another notification dated 8-10-1985 under the very same provision declaring that no right of pre-emption shall exist in respect of sales of land falling in the areas of any municipality in the State of Haryana. There is no dispute that the suit lands were before the issuance of the notifications dated 28-7-1983 and 8-10-1985.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants made two submissions before us. Firstly he contended that since the decree for eviction had been executed on 11-10-1980 before the deposit of the 4/5th amount on 26-11-1980 the right to enforce the decree stood defeated and, therefore, the decree ought to be set aside as unenforceable. In this connection, the High Court observed that the relevant date was the date of the passing of the decree i.e. 30-9-1980 and not the date on which 4/5th of the amount was deposited. The High Court took the view and, in our opinion, rightly, that once decree for enforcement of the pre-emption right was passed the subsequent deposit of the court fee and purchase money within the time allowed by the decree cannot change the date of the decree because the decree is not preliminary decree so to say. Therefore, on the date of the passing of the decree since the respondent continued to be in possession of the lands in question his subsequent dispossession w.e.f. 11-10-1980 will not set the decree at naught. The term "decree" is defined by Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the amending Act of 1976 to mean the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. So what the decree conveys is formal expression of an