SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against final decree dated 17-11-1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gokak in F. D. P. no. 3/1989. ( 2 ) THE 1 st respondent/plaintiff-decree-holder filed O. S. No. 172/1981 against theappellant and respondents 2 to 7 Judgment-debtors for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage deed by sale of mortgaged properties. the suit was decreed on 7-11-1983 and a preliminary decree was passed. the Judgment-debtors were granted six months to pay the decretal amount. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 172/1981, thedefendants have preferred R. F. A. No. 257/1984 before this Court and the same is pending. In that appeal the appellants herein obtained an interim order of stay which came to an end on the expiry of 10 weeks from 18-7-1984. the plaintiff/dccrcc-holder filed an application on 17-11-1990 under Order 34, Rule 5 of the C. P. C. for drawing up of a final decree. the Judgment debtors resisted the application on the ground that as the stay order passed in R. F. A. No. 257/1984 came to an end on the expiry of 10 weeks from 18-7-1984, the application filed by the decree-holder for drawing up of a final decree on 5-9-1989 was barred by time as per article 137 of the Limitation act as the right to apply for a final decree accrued to the decree-holder no sooner the interim order passed in the R. F. A. No. 257/1984 came to an end. the trial Court overruled the objections and held that as the defendants/judgment-dcbtors themselves have gone in appeal against the preliminary decree and obtained a stay order they cannot contend that the application was barred by time. accordingly, he passed the final decree on 17-11-1990. Hence, one of the Judgment-debtors has come up in appeal. the trial Court overruled the objections and held that as the defendants/judgment-dcbtors themselves have gone in appeal against the preliminary decree and obtained a stay order they cannot contend that the application was barred by time. accordingly, he passed the final decree on 17-11-1990. Hence, one of the Judgment-debtors has come up in appeal. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Smt. Vijaya R. Hanumanthagad, learned counsel for theappellant that as article 137 of the Limitation act was attracted to the application filed under Order 34, Rule 5 of the C. P. C. and as the application was filed on 5-9-1989, it was beyond the period of three years from the date the right to apply accrued to the decree-holder, as the right to apply accrued to the decree-holder on the expiry of 10 weeks from 18-7-1984, the date on which the interim order was granted for a period of 10 weeks and was not continued thereafter, as such the application ought to have been dismissed as barred by time. ( 5 ) IT is not possible to accept this contention, It is a settled position of law thatwhen an appeal is preferred, whether it be by the plaintiff or by the defendants-Judgment-debtors against the preliminary decree passed in a suit for recovery of the mortgaged money by sale of mortgaged properties, it would be open to the decree-holder to file an application for drawing up of a final decree after the appeal is disposed of one way or other. the decree-holder would have three years to make an application under Order 34, Rule 5 of the C. P. C. from the dale of the decree in appeal as in such a case three years would run from the date of the decree in the appeal. It is also open to him to file an application under Order 34, Rule 5 of the C. P. Code even during the pendency of the appeal preferred from a preliminary decree. In such a case, the question of applying article 137 of the Limitation act does not arise as he can apply at any time during the pendency of the appeal. In such a case, the question of applying article 137 of the Limitation act does not arise as he can apply at any time during the pendency of the appeal. the supreme Court in Sital Parshad and another v Kishori Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1236 has observed thus: "it is true that if no final decree has been passed before the appeal from the preliminary decree is decided, the decree-holder gets three years from the date of the decree in appeal from the preliminary decree to apply for a final decree. that, however, is a question of limitation and Courts have held that in such a case three years run from the date of the decree in appeal from the preliminary decree. But if the decree-holder does not wish to await the result of the appeal from the preliminary decree he can ask for a final decree in the meantime, and if the preliminary decree is confirmed in toto, the final decree will need no change and can be executed as it stands. the decree-holder in such a case need not apply for a fresh final decree and can execute the final decree already passed in the meantime. " therefore, it is clear that during the pendency of the appeal it would be open to the decree-holder either to wait till the disposal of the appeal or apply for a final decree. If the decree-holder applies for a final decree during the pendency of the appeal from a preliminary decree, there is no question of applying the period of limitation as contemplated in article 137 of the Limitation act. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court referred to above, we are of the view that the executing Court is right in overruling the objection, though the reasons given by it cannot be held to be wholly correct. We see no ground to admit this appeal. It is accordingly rejected. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that it would be open to the appellant as well as thedecree-holder as observed in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Sital parshad and another v Kishori Lal, air 1967 SC 1236 to bring it to the notice of the bench hearing R. F. a. no. It is accordingly rejected. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that it would be open to the appellant as well as thedecree-holder as observed in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Sital parshad and another v Kishori Lal, air 1967 SC 1236 to bring it to the notice of the bench hearing R. F. a. no. 257/1984 the existence of the final decree as it is open to the appellate Court to give directions with respect to the final decree if it considers necessary. Dismissal of this appeal shall not be treated as coming in the way of issuing such directions as are deemed necessary in R. F. a. no. 257/1984. --- *** --- .