Hon'ble GOYAL, J.—This is a defendants second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the Code) filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bayana in Civil Appeal No. 2/1986 whereby the judgment and final decree for redemption of mortgage passed in Civil Suit No. 6/1969 by the learned Munsif, Bayana on 15.9.1983 in favour of the plaintiff mortgagors was affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit on 2.1.1969 against the defendants for redemption of mortgage of a house situated at Rudawal. The trial Court passed the contested preliminary decree on 12.1.1978 in favour of all the plaintiffs and directed them to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- into the Court within a period of one month which was found due upon them. The plaintiffs deposited the said amount into the Court within the stipulated period. Thereafter on 17.11.1981 the plaintiffs applied for passing of final decree in their favour. The defendants opposed this prayer on the ground that application for grant of final decree in the redemption suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court after hearing the parties held that there is no limitation for filing application under Order 34 Rule 8 of the Code and passed final decree for redemption of the mortgage on 15.9.1983 in favour of the plaintiffs. Against the aforesaid final decree the defendants filed an appeal but the same has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bayana by the impugned judgment & decree dated 12.11.1992 holding that the provisions of Limitation Act were inapplicable. Therefore, this appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant judgments and other material available on the record.

4. A short substantial question of law involved in this second appeal is "whether an application under sub-rule (1) of Rule-8 of Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is governed by the Limitation Act and if an application is not filed within the period of limitation, prescribed under the Limitation Act, the remedy of the plaintiff, in whose favour the preliminary decree has been passed, is lost?"

5. It was inter alia contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the trial Court passed a contested preliminary decree on 12.1.1978 in favour of the plaintiffs and also directed them to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- into the Court within a period of one month and the plaintiffs deposited the said amount within the stipulated time but did not file application for framing the final decree under Order 34 Rule 8 of the Code within the prescribed period of three years as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and only filed an application on 17.11.1981 whereas three years period of limitation had already expired on 12.2.1981, therefore, on the time barred application final decree could not have been passed under Order 34 Rule 8 of the Code. Reliance was placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of K. Parameswaran Pillai (dead) vs. K. Sumathi alias Jesis Jessie Jacquiline and another, reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 191.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiffs submitted that in compliance of the preliminary decree dated 12.1.1978, within a period of one month the plaintiffs deposited Rs. 1,000/- as directed by the trial Court and thereafter it was the duty of the trial Court to have directed the defendants-mortgages under Order 34 Rule 7(1)(c)(1) of the Code to deliver the possession of the mortgaged property to the plaintiffs but no such directions were given, therefore, the plaintiffs-mortgagors filed an application before the trial Court to direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the mortgaged property and the documents thereof and in such situation, the provisions of Order 34 Rule 8 of the Code are not applicable in the present case. It was further submitt