JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a pre emption suit. Sukhpal Singh and Abdur Rahmai brought two rival pre-emption suits in respect to the same sale. The Court of first instance passed a decree awarding to Sukhpal Singh the prior right of pre-emption and directing him, to use the words of the decree, to deposit the amount to the credit of the vendees within 30 days. The decree was passed on the 5th of May 1917. On the 2nd of June the vendees enme into Court and certified to the Court that they had received payment of the amount due from Sukhpal Singh The money was not actually paid into Court. Thereupon Abdur Rahman paid the amount-into Court after the 4th of June and applied to the Court for execution of the decree and for possession. Accordingly he was placed in possession. Sukhpal Singh at once applied to the Court objecting to this and asked that the order be set aside and that he be restored to possession. The Court held that as the money had not been paid into Court by Sukhpal Singh, he had not complied with the decree, and rejected big objection. The lower Appellate Court has taken the same view, Hence the present appeal. The Court below relied upon the exact wording of Order XX. the Rule 14, which says: "Where the Court decrees a claim to pre-emption in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase money has not been paid into Court, the decree shall specify a day on or before which the purchase-money shall be so paid." It is prgaed, and was go held by the Court below, that this re-cans that the decree must state that the money shall be paid into Court. Order XXI, Rule 1, lays down that "all money payable under a decree shall be paid into the Court, whose duty it is to execute the decree or out of Court to the decree-holder or otherwise us the Court which made the decree directs." If we examine the decree in the present case, it does not state that the money shall be actually deposited in Court. In any event we are of opinion that the plaintiff Sukhpal Singh having paid the full amount due to the vendees into the hands of the vendees out of Court and the latter having duly certified that payment within the period allowed by the decree, he has fully complied with the spirit as well as the letter of the decree. We think that it would be absurd to hold otherwise. The money was paid and the payment was duly certified to the Court. We think that the order of the Court below is incorrect. We allow the appeal, set aside that order and direct that the appellant Sukhpal Singh be replaced in possession of the property if he has been ousted from it. The appellant will have his costs in all Courts in this matter. Costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.