An objection to a decree that is not raised in a timely manner may be deemed to have been waived and may become res judicata, making the decree final and binding between the parties.

Mahajan, J.

1. This execution second appeal has been placed before us in view of the order of Harbans Singh, Acting, C. J., dated the 17th July. 1969 The matters which the learned Judge wanted to be settled by a larger Bench, in our opinion, do not arise as will presently appear from the narration of facts. As the whole case has been placed before us. We have dealt with it and disposed of the same.

2. The land in dispute was sold by Smt. Rallo Devi, the grandmother of the present respondent. This sale was preempted by Vinod Kumar who was the grandson of the vendor. His suit was decreed by the trial Court on the 31st of August. 1962. with regard to two-third of the land on payment of Rs. 19,333-33. A direction was given in the decree that the balance of the pre-emption money had to be deposited by the 10th of November, 1962. The money could not be deposited by the 10th of November, 1962, because the Treasury was closed and, in fact, the deposit was made on the next working day, that is, the 12th of November. 1962. Against the decree, that was prepared, two appeals were preferred: one by the plaintiff-pre-emptor and the other by the defendant-vendee. The vendees claim in appeal before the learned District Judge was that the pre-emption should have been allowed on payment of Rs. 29,000 and not on Rs. 19,333-33, as was done by the trial Court. On the other hand, the pre-emptors claim in appeal was that he was entitled to pre-empt one-third of the land. The learned District Judge allowed the pre-emptors appeal and dismissed the vendees appeal, with the result that a decree in favour of the pre-emptor was passed on payment of Rs. 29,000. The pre-emptor was given time to make good the balance to make up the amount of Rs. 29,000 by the 6th of . August, 1968. This was done within time. Against the decision of the learned District Judge, the vendee appealed. He contested the decision of the lower appellate Court on the ground, that possession by pre-emption could only be allowed to the extent of two-third of the land sold. This plea prevailed with this Court, with the result that the trial Courts decree was restored.

3. When the pre-emptor proceeded to execute the decree, an objection was raised before the executing Court that as the pre-emption money, namely. Rs. 19,333-33 had not been deposited on the 10th of November. 1962, the pre-emption suit should be deemed to have been dismissed; and. therefore, no decree could be passed and there was nothing to execute. This objection was rejected by the executing Court and so also by the appellate Court. Both the Courts proceeded on the view that the pre-emption money was in deposit in the Court before the 6th of August, 1968, and as the trial Courts decree had merged with the decree of the District Judge the deposit was within time. The vendee is dissatisfied with this decision and has come up in appeal to this Court.

4. It is not necessary to deal with the matters raised in the order of Harbans Singh, Acting C. J., which led the learned Judge to refer the matter to a Division Bench. In our, opinion, the appeal stands concluded on a narrow ground which escaped notice. The ground, on which we have proceeded to dismiss the appeal, is purely one of law; and in order to appreciate our decision, the following facts have to be kept in view. Under the trial Courts decree, the balance of the preemption money had to be deposited by the 10th of November. 1962. It was not deposited on that date, but was deposited on the 12th of November. 1962. The reason for this delay was that the Treasury was closed on the 10th as well as on the 11th of November, 1962. In any event if the deposit made on the 12th of November, 1962, was not a good deposit, the suit should have been dismissed and not decreed. However, a decree was framed and two appeals against that decree were preferred -- one by the pre-emptor and the other by the vendee. No objection was taken to the framing of the decree by the vendee in the