ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2024 passed in RSA No. 1272/1992 (O&M) passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh by which the appeal filed by the appellant against the concurrent judgment of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court have not been interfered with. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that he had bought a parcel of land on 08.11.1989 pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 07.10.1985. Thereafter, the respondent on 01.12.1989 filed Suit No.842 of 1989, seeking his right of pre-emption with regard to the subject property on the basis that he is co-sharer and no notice was given to him. 5. Learned counsel submitted that in the partition suit which was filed prior to these transactions the “Naksha B” was finalized by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar on 07.06.1991. It was submitted that now it is settled law that preparation of “Naksha B” is the date on which a decree is supposed to be complete in a partition suit. It was contended that after the said decree in the partition suit, in which the right of pre- emption of the respondent ceased as he was no longer an adjoining co-sharer, still, the Trial Court decreed the suit on 03.10.1991. 6. The appellant, being aggrieved, preferred Appeal No. 469 of 1991 before the first Appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed on 19.05.1992, on the basis of the order passed by the Collector dated 02.12.1991, in which the decree in the partition suit had been interfered with and the matter had been remanded for fresh consideration. The second appeal being RSA No. 1272 of 1992, filed by the appellant before the High Court was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.03.2024 leading to the present appeal. 7. It was contended that there has been an error on the part of the High Court, where though the dates are noted, but still it has been presumed that the partition was still open on the date of preparation of “Naksha B” i.e., 07.06.1991. 7. It was contended that there has been an error on the part of the High Court, where though the dates are noted, but still it has been presumed that the partition was still open on the date of preparation of “Naksha B” i.e., 07.06.1991. It was contended that there being no dispute on facts when “Naksha B” was prepared on 07.06.1991 and the Trial Court decreed the suit on 03.10.1991, there being a gap of almost four months, there could not have been a positive order on the Suit filed by the respondent in his favour as the law has been settled by the Constitution Bench that the right to pre-emption should exist at the time of the agreement, at the time of the sale, and should continue till the time the decree is passed. It was contended that on the day the decree was passed i.e. on 03.10.1991, a partition already stood fructified and crystallized by preparation of “Naksha B” on 07.06.1991 and in terms of the said partition, the respondent was no more a co-sharer of the adjoining portion which has been bought by the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was an appeal pending and in any view of the matter, within two months of passing of the order, there has been a remand made by the Collector and thus this Court would not interfere as ultimately the rights of the parties are still to crystallize. 9. Having considered the matter, we find it a fit case for interference. A simple matter has been grown out of proportion. The matter rested only on consideration of three relevant dates i.e., 07.06.1991, 03.10.1991, and 02.12.1991. 07.06.1991, admittedly is the date on which “Naksha B” was prepared, which in law is to be taken as the deemed date on which partition was decreed. 03.10.1991, is the date on which Trial Court decreed the Suit of the respondent. 02.12.1991, is the appeal order of the Collector by which the order dated 07.06.1991 / partition decree was interfered with and the matter was remanded. The law being settled that the position of the parties has to continue till a stage which ends on the date on which the decree was passed, the said cut-off date would be 07.06.1991. 02.12.1991, is the appeal order of the Collector by which the order dated 07.06.1991 / partition decree was interfered with and the matter was remanded. The law being settled that the position of the parties has to continue till a stage which ends on the date on which the decree was passed, the said cut-off date would be 07.06.1991. The Trial Court decreed the Suit on 03.10.1991, thus is held to be erroneous, impermissible and is accordingly set aside. As a consequence the subsequent orders in Appeal No. 469 of 1991 and order dated 14.03.2024 passed in RSA No. 1272 of 1992 are also set aside. The Suit also stands dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. 11. The appeal stands allowed in the aforementioned terms. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.