Judgment :- 1. In this appeal by the decree-holder the question for decision is, whether in execution the sale of item 1 of the properties in the schedule of the decree can be allowed to take place. The decree comprised two items of properties and was based on a compromise, which made both of them liable for the satisfaction of the amount of the decree and to which the second defendant, though interested in item 1, was not a signatory. At first, the sale of item 2 was held, but was afterwards set aside on the ground, that there was no saleable interest in it. Subsequently, on an execution petition dated Vrischigom 21, 1125, for the sale of item 1, notice was served on the parties interested including the second defendant, and no objection being taken to it, the execution Court on Vrischigom 30, 1125, ordered execution to proceed against that item on Makarom 11, 1125, the second defendant filed an objection to execution, in which the validity of the decree as against him based on the compromise which was not signed by him, was not taken. He also applied for review of the earlier order allowing execution against item 1. His prayer was rejected and an appeal preferred by him did not meet with success and was dismissed on March 18,1953. The decree-holder then took steps to execute the decree against item 1, when he was met by the present objection by the second defendant, that the decree is not valid or binding on him. The execution Court dismissed the objection, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge allowed it. The chief contention of the learned counsel for the decree-holder is that the second defendant is precluded by the rule of constructive res judicata from raising the objection to the validity of the decree at this stage. It is now too late in the day to contend, that the principle of constructive res judicata has no application to execution proceedings; but the answer was, that the rule cannot operate to preclude a party, from pleading a defect of jurisdiction in the Court. It is now too late in the day to contend, that the principle of constructive res judicata has no application to execution proceedings; but the answer was, that the rule cannot operate to preclude a party, from pleading a defect of jurisdiction in the Court. The law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukkerjee, AIR 1953 S.C. 65, in which the majority of the Court agreed with the view of Ghulam Hasan, J. that apart from lack of inherent jurisdiction of the Court, the rule will operate to preclude a party even from relying on a defect of jurisdiction when he has failed to do so earlier. The case was followed by the Patna High Court in Dhirendra Nath Chandra v. Setish Chandra Gorain, AIR. 1956 Patna 4, in which, the validity of a sale in execution, held contrary to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, was in issue and by Chakravartti C.J., and S.R. Das Gupta, J., of the Calcutta High Court in Newton Kickie v. Official Trustee of West Bengal, AIR. 1954 Calcutta 506. It is unnecessary to cite other cases in which a similar view has been held. Nothing to the contrary has been laid down, as contended, by the division bench of this Court which decided Parameswaran Nair v. Aiyappan Pillai,1958 KLT. 1021, in which it was only held, that an order recognising the assignment of a decree, did not conclude the judgment-debtor on his objections to delivery of possession pursuant to a court sale, the validity of which was still in dispute in other collateral proceedings. The execution Court which passed the order on Vrischigom 30,1125, suffered from no inherent want of jurisdiction, pecuniary or territorial, to execute the decree and the defect in the proceedings, which undoubtedly existed by reason of the second defendant being no signatory to the compromise even if it pertains to jurisdiction, is not such as to deprive the Court of all its jurisdiction to execute the decree as it stands. I therefore hold, that the second defendant is now barred by the rule of constructive res judicata from objecting to the execution of the decree against item 1. This appeal is therefore allowed with costs.