Judgment :- 1. This second appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of two cross decrees. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 992 of 1083 on the file of the Krishnapuram Munsiff's Court is the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 297 of 1103. The two lower Courts have concurrently found that the decree-holder in the former case is entitled to further amounts after setting off the entire decree-debt in the latter case. The lower appellate court confirmed the execution court's order to the effect, on the ground that a prior interlocutory order the execution court passed had become final between the parties and that it was therefore incompetent on the part of the decree-holder in O.S. 297 to seek to reagitate in the appeal the question dealt with by that order. We are afraid the lower appellate court's decision cannot be confirmed on the ground mentioned by the learned judge. 2. The execution court passed the order which was the subject of the appeal before the lower appellate court on 13.11.1123. Prior to that on 21.11.1122 the Court directed the parties to file statements setting out the amounts due as per the two decrees and in giving that direction held that the decree-holder in O.S. 992 was entitled to get interest on the mesne profits awarded to him by the decree. It is now agreed on both sides that under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in force at the time when that decree was passed no interest on mesne profits could be allowed unless the decree expressly provided for it. The decree makes no such provision and the execution Court's direction embodied in its order dated 21.11.1122 is therefore clearly wrong. The final order the execution Court passed was on the basis of that order and the view the lower appellate court has taken is that in so far as the order dated 21.11.1122 was not appealed against it had become final and that precluded the appellant (who is also the appellant here) from raising the correctness of the order as to interest on mesne profits. Reliance was placed for this view on the decision reported in Jathavethan Nambooripad v. Revi Namboori, 33 T.L.J. 340. That case however is only authority for the view that it was not open to the execution Court to review or reconsider its previous order. Reliance was placed for this view on the decision reported in Jathavethan Nambooripad v. Revi Namboori, 33 T.L.J. 340. That case however is only authority for the view that it was not open to the execution Court to review or reconsider its previous order. The order did not preclude the appellate Court from examining the correctness of the position provided the condition laid down in that behalf by the Code of Civil Procedure has been duly complied with. 3. S.105 (S. 83 Travancore Code) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides inter alia that where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. Though the section says: "where a decree is appealed from" it is well-settled on authorities that the principle can be extended to interlocutory orders passed in execution proceedings. See Chandrabala Debi v. Prabodh Chandra Roy - 36 Cal. 422; Alagappa Chetty v. Annamalai Chetty and others - 4 Law Weekly 411 Madras 1916; Chitar Singh v. Lachmi Narain - A.I.R. 1932 Allahabad 392 and Muthayyan Swaminathan Sastrigal and others v. S. Narayanaswami Sastrigal and others - A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 936. A passage from the decision of Mookerjee, J. and Carnduff, J. in the first named case may usefully be quoted here. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that if this view be adopted, the decree-holder ought to have immediately preferred an appeal against these orders. In our opinion it was not necessary for him to do so. As was pointed out by this Court in the case of Behari Lal Pundit v. Kedar Nath Mullick - (1891) I.L.R. 18 Cal. 469 an appeal need not be preferred against every order in an execution proceeding. If the contrary view prevailed, and if appeals were allowed to be preferred against interlocutory orders, there might be innumerable appeals in the course of one execution proceeding. It is open to the party aggrieved to challenge by an appeal against the final order which determines the rights of the parties, the propriety of the interlocutory orders made in the course of the proceedings. It is open to the party aggrieved to challenge by an appeal against the final order which determines the rights of the parties, the propriety of the interlocutory orders made in the course of the proceedings. Besides, in this case, as the learned Vakil for the respondent pointed out, in the appeal which was preferred against the final order, the order of the 15th August was specifically mentioned as an order which ought not to stand. We are of opinion, therefore that it was open to the learned District Judge, in hearing the appeal against the orders of the 27th August, to determine the validity of the orders of the 15th August. On these grounds, we must hold that the orders of the District Judge are correct and should be affirmed". 4. The lower appellate court's view that the prior order of the execution court dated 21.11.1122 disentitled the appellant from agitating the matter in appeal cannot therefore be upheld for the reason stated by the learned judge. 5. It however so transpires that the said decree-holder did not in his memorandum of appeal to the lower appellate court raise the question of the correctness of the order regarding interest on mesne profits at all. Under S.105 in order that advantage may be taken of the provision contained therein the ground of objection must be set out in the memorandum of appeal. Mulla's Commentaries (Eleventh Edn.1941) to the Section at page 383 may with advantage be referred to in this connection. In Parukutty Nethiaramma v. Sethu Amma - 36 (1120) CLR 672 to which one of us was a party a more or less similar question arose for decision and after referring to the passage to the above effect occurring in Mulla's Commentaries the judgment in that case goes on to say as follows: "The learned author relies on the decision reported as Tilak Raj Sing and another v. Chakradhari Singh and another -15 All. 119. This case has been followed in two other decisions of the Allahabad High Court. See Sheo Nath Singh v. Ram Din Singh and others -18 All. 19 and Bansi Lal and others v. Ramji Lal and another - 20 All. 370. I have not come across any contrary decision or any expression of opinion to the contrary in any of the Commentaries on the Code". See Sheo Nath Singh v. Ram Din Singh and others -18 All. 19 and Bansi Lal and others v. Ramji Lal and another - 20 All. 370. I have not come across any contrary decision or any expression of opinion to the contrary in any of the Commentaries on the Code". This circumstance that the appellant had not in his memorandum of appeal made the correctness of the execution court's order as to interest on mesne profits a ground of objection disentitled him to raise the question before the lower appellate court. We therefore feel constrained to uphold the order dismissing the appeal though our reason is different from that given by the learned Judge. In fact the Memorandum of Appeal to the lower appellate Court states that the execution court should have accepted the statement the appellant filed before that Court. Therein he had included interest on mesne profits. No doubt the Court's direction made it incumbent on him to include interest but in attempting to stand by it in his memorandum of appeal he had practically given away his case. The case was really lost when that memorandum of appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court. No appellate Court will be justified in permitting an appellant to raise a point before it diametrically opposed to that raised in the memorandum of appeal. 6. Before concluding we must not omit to an argument which Mr. M. Abraham the learned counsel for the appellant raised regarding the execution Court's order dated 31.11.1122. It was contended that the order that mesne profits awarded by the decree in O.S. 992 should carry interest was an order without jurisdiction and hence void. We regret we cannot accede to this contention. The order is no doubt erroneous but every wrong order cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. The question before the Court then was as to the true construction for the implication of the decree for mesne profits. If the Court's decision the other way would have bound the parties it is impossible to say its decision the wrong way cannot bind them. 7. The second appeal fails in the result and we dismiss it. In the circumstances of the case we make no order for costs. If the Court's decision the other way would have bound the parties it is impossible to say its decision the wrong way cannot bind them. 7. The second appeal fails in the result and we dismiss it. In the circumstances of the case we make no order for costs. The lower appellate Court passed a similar order regarding the costs before it and we upholding its decision dismiss the appeal on an entirely different ground. Dismissed.