As per case facts, the Respondent filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed, directing the original Defendant to execute a sale deed or allow the Respondent to deposit ... the balance consideration and get it executed. The Defendant failed, so the Respondent deposited the amount and filed for execution. An appeal by the Defendant led to the Respondent withdrawing the amount with liberty to redeposit after the appeal's dismissal. After the appeal was dismissed and legal representatives impleaded, the Respondent sought to redeposit, which was allowed, prompting the present Petition by the judgment debtors. The question arose whether the lower court erred in allowing the re-deposit, given the alleged failure to deposit within the original stipulated time and readiness/willingness. Finally, the Court found the decree did not specify a time for the Respondent to deposit, and the petitioners had not objected to the initial deposit or the subsequent withdrawal with liberty to redeposit. Thus, the petitioners cannot now object. The Petition was dismissed.