As per case facts, a property was mortgaged. The original owner mortgaged it with Achaldas Oswal. The property was later sold in auction to Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda. Ramvilas filed a ... suit for redemption, and a preliminary decree was passed, directing him to deposit the mortgaged money within a certain period. He failed to deposit the money and his application for extension of time was rejected. Later, he filed an application for preparation of a final decree, which was dismissed by the trial court as time-barred. This dismissal was challenged by Ramvilas in the Bombay High Court, which allowed his revision application, holding that there is no period of limitation for filing a final decree application in respect of redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. This appeal is against that High Court judgment. The question arose whether the period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to an application for preparation of a final decree in a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, distinguishing between usufructuary mortgages and other types of mortgages. It clarified that for usufructuary mortgages, the right of redemption is a statutory right that continues until extinguished by act of parties or a court decree. Rule 8 of Order XXXIV CPC, which deals with final decrees in redemption suits, does not impose a limitation period for the mortgagor of a usufructuary mortgage to apply for a final decree. The Court explicitly stated that no limitation begins to run until the deposit is made in such cases, and therefore, an application for a final decree in a usufructuary mortgage redemption suit is not barred by limitation. Any contrary observations in previous judgments were overruled.