Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Saurendra Pandey, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, the learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 8.

2. The respondent no. 7 is dead.

3. Here is an illustrious case, where, because of the operation of law, the appellant/purchaser perforce succeeds only for the reason of delay in re-conveyance of the title in favour of the pre-emptor/respondent.

4. The appellant had purchased the property in question by a registered sale deed dated 18.10.1994. Shortly thereafter, a pre-emption application was filed by respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 ( respondent no. 7 died during the pendency of this appeal) but without depositing of the sale price plus 10 percent thereof within time. The amount was deposited only on 22.03.1995 belatedly.

5. Mr. Pandey, the learned advocate for the appellant contends that in the first instance, the preemption proceeding ought not to have been triggered, for all conditions had to be satisfied before initiating such proceeding. Nonetheless, the pre-emption was entertained, but was ultimately dismissed on 16.08.1995.

6. Against the afore-mentioned order rejecting the claim of pre-emption, the pre-emptors/respo