( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 1/mortgagor against the judgment and decree dated 19-7-2001 passed by Additional District Judge, sheopurkalan in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/99, whereby learned Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 24-12-1998 passed by Second civil Judge Class II, Sheopurkalan and dismissed the appeal of the mortgagee. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that Kapoor chand (hereinafter referred to as "mortgagor") (since deceased) mortgaged suit house vide registered mortgage deed dated 13-10-1983 in favour of Durga Prasad appellant/defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "mortgagee" ). There was an stipulation in the mortgage deed that if mortgage amount was not returned to the mortgagee within the period stipulated then the mortgagee will be within his right to get the sale deed executed and the mortgage deed would be treated "an agreement to sale. " The house was mortgaged for Rs. 10,000/- and kapoorchand had taken the house on rent. The possession of the mortage house was with Kapoorchand. The appellant/defendant no. 1 (mortgagee) filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against Kapoorchand which was decreed ex parte on 3-9-1993. The appellant/defendant No. 1 filed an execution before the Executing Court in Execution case No. 6/86x93, the whole rent of Rs. 28,519/- was deposited by the "mortgagor (Kapoorchand) on 29-9-1994. The mortgagor further deposited the whole amount of mortgage money amounting to Rs. 10,000/- on 3-10-1994 to the account of mortgagee and filed an application under S. 83 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 before the First Civil judge Class II, Sheopurkalan. The trial court allowed the application vide order dated 5-12-1996 in M. J. C. No. 19/94, released the property. The appellant/defendant No. 1-mortgagee refused to accept the amount deposited by the mortgagor kapoorchand and filed a revision challenging the order dated 5-12-1996. This Court in Civil Revision No. 43/1997 vide order dated 11-7-1997 allowed the revision application and held that proper course for the mortgagor was to initiate regular civil proceedings. The mortgagor during his life time sold part of the suit premises i. e. one shop to Kallaram vide registered sale deed dated 29-10-1994 and handed over the possession of the said shop to Kallaram. On 24-4-1996 kapoorchand died. The mortgagor during his life time sold part of the suit premises i. e. one shop to Kallaram vide registered sale deed dated 29-10-1994 and handed over the possession of the said shop to Kallaram. On 24-4-1996 kapoorchand died. Widow of Kapoorchand, tulsa Bai plaintiff No. 1 and Kallaram-plaintiff No. 2 filed a suit for redemption of suit house and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No, 1 /appellant for interfering with the possession of the suit house and mortgage deed be returned to them. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs had deposited mortgage money of Rupees 10,000/- on 3-10-1994 and also deposited arrears of rent in lieu of the interest of mortgage money amounting to Rs. 28519/- on 21-9-1994. The appellant/defendant No. 1 raised an objection that the suit for redemption in respect of mortgage house was barred as the same was not filed during the life time of Kapoorchand and that mortgagor failed to comply with the condition of mortgage deed and as such defendant No. 1-appellant became the owner of the house. ( 3 ) THE trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that as per Cl. 4 stipulated in mortgage deed dated 13-10-1983 is inoperative and void and held that he paid the amount of mortgage money as well as interest before filing of suit and was ready to pay rest of the amount, if any found due. The trial Court further found that suit filed by the plaintiff was in time. As per Art. 61-B of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the possession of the mortgage property was not taken from plaintiff and the mortgage property was taken by the mortgagor on rent and as such the suit could be filed within 30 years. The trial Court further held that no relief of possession was claimed by the plaintiff and as such suit was in time. In respect of granting final decree instead of granting preliminary decree it was held by the trial Court that plaintiff deposited mortgage money before the First Civil judge Class II, Sheopurkalan vide Receipt no. 22 Book No. 7718 dated 3-10-1984 and on 21-9-1994 mortgagor deposited Rs. 28519/- towards arrears of rent in execution proceedings filed by the appellant/defendant vide receipt No. 2 Book No. 7748. Thus, whole amount of rent and mortgage money was deposited by the plaintiffs. 22 Book No. 7718 dated 3-10-1984 and on 21-9-1994 mortgagor deposited Rs. 28519/- towards arrears of rent in execution proceedings filed by the appellant/defendant vide receipt No. 2 Book No. 7748. Thus, whole amount of rent and mortgage money was deposited by the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that once mortgage money was deposited by the mortgagor on 3-10-1994 then the appellant/defendant No. 1 was not entitled for rent and since there was no dispute regarding depositing the arrears and mortgage money no preliminary decree was required and instead of granting preliminary decree trial Court granted final decree for redemption of mortgage house on 24-12-1998 and directed the appellant/defendant No. 1 to hand over the mortgage deeds etc. within a period of two months from the date of judgment and decree and also held that defendant No. 1 entitled to withdraw the deposited amount. The trial court also granted decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1/ appellant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and that he will also not claim any ownership in respect of suit house. ( 4 ) THE appellant/defendant challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that as per the condition No. 4 stipulated in the mortgage deed the mortgagor was not entitled to redeem the mortgage property as he failed to pay the mortgage money within a period of 5 years from the date of mortgage deed and trial Court committed error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The Lower Appellate court rejected the objections of the appellants on the ground that extinguishment of right can take place by contract between the parties or by a decree of the Court or by a statutory provision which debars the mortgagor from redeeming the mortgage. Lower appellate Court found that in this particular case there was no contract between the parties by which right of redemption was extinguished nor defendant No. 1 filed any suit for execution of the sale deed as per terms of the mortgage deed and as such rejected the said objection and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Lower appellate Court found that in this particular case there was no contract between the parties by which right of redemption was extinguished nor defendant No. 1 filed any suit for execution of the sale deed as per terms of the mortgage deed and as such rejected the said objection and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. ( 5 ) THIS second appeal was admitted on 30-7-2003 on the following substantial questions of law :" (1) What would be the effect of final judgment and decree passed without following the provisions of Order 34, Rule 7 CPC in not passing preliminary decree in the matter before directing for redemption of the property and passing of final decree ? (2) What would be the effect of order passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, in Suit No. 6a/96 (u/s. 83 of Transfer of property Act) in the proceedings which were pending in the present case and effect thereof on decree passed ?" ( 6 ) IN respect of substantial question of law No. 1, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no final decree can be passed without passing the preliminary decree under Order 34 Rule 7 of C. P. C. and courts below committed an error in not passing the preliminary decree before directing for redemption of property and passing of final decree. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that whole amount up to the date had not been deposited. The suit was filed on 1-8-1997 whereas the plaintiffs deposited the mortgage amount on 5-12-1994 and also deposited all arrears of rent in an execution proceedings executed by the appellant vide Execution Case No. 6/86x96 on 21-9-1994 amounting to Rs. 28519/ -. Order 34, Rule 7 of C. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as "code") undoubtedly contemplates the passing, in the first instance of a preliminary decree in a suit for redemption. The Code says that in such a preliminary decree, the Court is to order that an account is to be taken of what was due to the defendant (mortgagee) at the date of such decree for (1) principal and interest on the mortgage; (2) the costs of suit, if any, awarded to him and (3) other costs, charges and expenses properly incurred by him up to that date in respect of his mortgage security together with interest thereon. Clause (b) of the sub-rule 1 of Rule 7 of Order 34 of code says that the Court can declare the amount due on that date, without giving a direction in the preliminary decree for ascertaining the amount as contemplated under Clause (a ). In the present case, the mortgagor has deposited the mortgage amount of Rs. 10,000/- even before the date of filing of the suit. The fact that the said amount was being deposited as the amount due to the mortgage was also mentioned in the plaint. In such circumstances trial Court was not wrong in passing a final decree for redemption without passing preliminary decree. In the case of Roshan Lal v. Bhuri singh, reported in AIR 1922 All 479 it has been held that where there is a valid mortgage and a deposit is made in the Court by the mortgage to redeem it, the Court is not bound to first pass a preliminary decree and then a final decree which means the prolongation of the proceedings, and no injustice will be done to either party by the passing of the final decree at once. In the case of marimutu Muthiriar v. Ayyathurai, reported in AIR 1978 Madras 246 it has been held that the provisions contained under Order 34, Rules 7, 8 and 9 of Code, contemplating the passing of preliminary decree first and final decree at a later stage are for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the mortgagor to deposit the mortgage amount due to the mortgagee. But in a case where there was no dispute regarding the amount due to the mortgagee and the mortgagor had in fact deposited the mortgage amount even before the filing of the suit, the Court is not without jurisdiction to straightway pass a final decree for redemption. From the aforesaid preposition it is clear that the Court is empowered to grant a final decree of redemption when the amount was already deposited by the mortgagor before filing a civil suit and when there was no need for ascertaining of the amount to be due as required under Clause (a) of Rule 7 (1) of Order 34 of Code. ( 7 ) IN the case in hand the mortgagor had already deposited the mortgage money along with all the arrears of rent much before filing the Civil Suit and appellant/defendant no. ( 7 ) IN the case in hand the mortgagor had already deposited the mortgage money along with all the arrears of rent much before filing the Civil Suit and appellant/defendant no. 1 never raised any dispute before the courts below regarding ascertaining the amount nor disputed regarding depositing of mortgage money and arrears of rent. I am hence of the view that the Courts below has not committed any error of law in granting final decree for redemption without granting preliminary decree. I answer the first question accordingly. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 (mortgagee) raised second objection that mortgagor had no right to sell part of the mortgage property to the plaintiff No. 2. This Court in the case of Kishan lal Aheer v. Board of Revenue, Gwalior, reported in (2000) 1 MPLJ 257 has held that the mortgagdf can transfer the property during the mortgage period. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly raised the question of limitation that suit was barred by time as the same was not filed from the date of 5 years from the date of mortgage deed. The lower Appellate Court held that suit was in time and trial Court had not committed any error inholding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was in time. Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. ( 9 ) IN respect of second substantial question of law no arguments was advanced by the appellant regarding effect of the order passed on 5-12-1996 in M. J. C. Case No. 19/ 1994, by which learned Civil Judge allowed the application under Section 83 of the transfer of Property Act, 1882 filed by the mortgagor Kapoorchand. It is submitted that the mortgagor after depositing the amount on 5-12-1994 filed an application under section 83 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which was allowed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the mortgagor after depositing the amount on 5-12-1994 filed an application under section 83 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter on revision filed by the appellant/defendant No. 1 this Court vide 11-7-1997 in c. R. No. 43/1997 set aside the said order on the ground that mortgagee not only refused to accept the amount but he also raised the dispute that he was entitled to purchase the mortgage property in view of the condition No. 4 stipulated in the mortgage deed and due to the aforesaid reason this Court directed that the proper course of the mortgagor was to be initiate regular civil proceedings. The mortgagor thereafter filed a suit for redemption. It was decreed by the trial Court and upheld by the Lower appellate Court. The effect of the order passed in an application under Secion 83 of the Transfer of Property Act came to an end with effect from 11-7-1997 and the order passed under Section 83 would not effect in any way in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. I answer the second question accordingly. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and dismissed the same with costs. Appeal dismissed. .