JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— The facts of this case are these:— On the 24th of September, 1904, the respondents' obtained a decree for pre-emption in respect of the foreclosure of a mortgage. The judgment directed that the plaintiff pre-emptor should pay Rs. 2,100 within two months together with the costs incurred by the purchaser in obtaining an order absolute for foreclosure, if any. The words in the decree drawn up in accordance with the judgment are, “together with the costs of the purchaser in the foreclosure case, if any.” The plaintiffs decree-holders, deposited Rs. 2,100 only within the time fixed 2. On the 24th of February, 1905, the judgment-debtors, appellants, applied to the Court to be restored to possession, on the ground that the costs the proceedings relating to the order absolute for foreclosure amounting to Rs. 25-12-0 had not been deposited, and consequently the plaintiffs' suit must be deemed “to have been dismissed. 3. This application was granted by the Court of first instance. The lower appellate Court agreed with the Court of first instance in holding that the full amount directed by the decree to be deposited had not been paid, but it was of opinion that the decree-holders had made an honest mistake, and accordingly directed them to pay Rs. 25-12-0, within 6 days from the date of the judgment and ordered that upon payment being made, the appeal would be decreed. We are informed that payment has been made. 4. If the learned Judge were right as to the construction of the deeree it would be difficult to reconcile his order with the Full Bench taking in Jagger Nath Pande v. Jokhu Tewari, [1896] I.L.R., 18 All., 223.. 5. There is another ground, however, upon which the decision may be supported. The decree awards to the plaintiffs Rs. 117-4-0, as costs. This they were entitled to set off against the amount which the decree ordered them to pay, vide the ruling of this Court in Ishri v. Gopal Saran, [1884] I.L.R., 6 All., 351.. If this amount of costs he set off against Rs. 2,100 plus Rs. 25-12-0, the costs of obtaining the order absolute for foreclosure, it would appear that the amount they deposited was in excess of what they were bound to pay. They have therefore committed no default and the application of the judgment-debtors to be restored to possession cannot succeed. If this amount of costs he set off against Rs. 2,100 plus Rs. 25-12-0, the costs of obtaining the order absolute for foreclosure, it would appear that the amount they deposited was in excess of what they were bound to pay. They have therefore committed no default and the application of the judgment-debtors to be restored to possession cannot succeed. In this view it is not necessary to consider whether under the decree the plaintiffs, decree-holders, committed an error in not depositing the costs of the proceedings relating to the order absolute. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale. Aikman, J.:— I am of the same opinion. If, however, it had been necessary to put a construction on the decree in the pre emption suit, I should have found it difficult to agree with what the learned Judge says. The decree in the pre-emption suit, directed the plaintiffs to pay in within the time specified Rs. 2,100 “mai kharch mushtari mukadama ka tai agar kuch ho” which may be translated “together with the costs of the purchaser in the case regarding the order absolute if there are any costs.” On referring to the order absolute we find that the Court which passed that order, although under the provisions of section 94 of the Transfer of Property Act, it might have added to the mortgage money the costs incurred by the mortgagee in the suit, did not see fit to do so. All it did was append to its order a statement of the costs incurred by the Plaintiff and the defendant. 6. Confining our attention merely to the language of the pre-emption decree, I am of opinion that the construvtion put upon it by the respondents' pleader was not only a possible but a natural one. Of course if we refer not merely to the decree but to the judgment in the pre-emption suit, it may be gathered that the Court which passed that decree intended to give the defen-dants the costs which they had incurred in getting the order absolute, and not merely the costs “if any” which had been awarded. Of course if we refer not merely to the decree but to the judgment in the pre-emption suit, it may be gathered that the Court which passed that decree intended to give the defen-dants the costs which they had incurred in getting the order absolute, and not merely the costs “if any” which had been awarded. But the insertion of the words “if any” would lead one to believe that the intention of the decree was to give the costs awarded, since the Court must have known that some penses must be incurred in getting an order absolute. It is quite clear, however, that the appellants have received, and within time, everything to which they were entitled under the pre-emption decree. I concur in the order proposed. 7. By The Court.:— The appeal is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.