Judgment B.P. Jha, J. This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 31st March, 1979 passed by the court below on an application filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party under Order 34, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for passing a final decree on the basis of a preliminary decree in a redemption suit. 2. The preliminary decree for redemption was passed On 6th November, 1965, and the same was affirmed by the High Court by its judgment dated 20th July, 1977, in Second Appeal No. 204 of 1971. In this circumstance, the decree-holders filed the application under Order 34, rule 8 of the Code for the preparation of the final decree on 21st September, 1978. An objection was also filed by the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends, firstly, that the. mortgage amount was not paid within the time fixed by the preliminary decree and, as such the final decree cannot be prepared, and, secondly, that the application for the preparation of the final decree was filed beyond three years from the date of the deposit and, as such, an application is barred by limitation, 4. In order to appreciate these contention., it is necessary to quote the operative portion of the judgment of the trial court which is as follows : "Let a preliminary decree be prepared, declaring the amount due to the - defendants after making calculation as indicate" in the judgment and mentioned above. The respondent must deposit the amount so declared due within the period of three months from the date of the preliminary decree failing which the right of redemption would be lost.” 5. On a perusal of the operative portion of the judgment, it is clear that the decree-holders were required to deposit the mortgage amount within three months from the date of the, preliminary decree. In the present case, the preliminary decree was passed on 11th August, 1971. The decree-holders deposited the mortgage amount under a challan dated 29th October. 1971. The preliminary decree disclosed that the decree-holders were required to deposit the amount within a period of three months from the date of the preliminary decree. In my opinion, the decree-holders were required to deposit the mort gale amount within three month, from the date of the preliminary decree that is from 17th August, 1971. 1971. The preliminary decree disclosed that the decree-holders were required to deposit the amount within a period of three months from the date of the preliminary decree. In my opinion, the decree-holders were required to deposit the mort gale amount within three month, from the date of the preliminary decree that is from 17th August, 1971. If it is so, the decree-holders deposited the amount within three months on 29th October, 1971. Therefore, in my opinion the deposit was within time. 6. So far as point no. 2 is a concerned, this point was not raised before the court below and there is no such finding to appear to that effect. It does not appear from the order that point no. 2 was raised before the court below. Hence, this Court will not allow these petitioners to raise this point of law for the first time in a civil revision petition. In a civil revision petition, a point of law can be raised on the basis of the findings arrived It by the court below, otherwise not. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not raise any question of Jurisdictional error committed by the Court below. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed, but without any costs. I agree, Application dismissed.