As per case facts, the deceased defendant, predecessor of the appellants, faced an ex parte decree for rent arrears and ejectment from a shop. He applied to set it aside ... under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, depositing some quantified amounts but not the full decreed amount, which included damages for use and occupation. The Trial Court rejected this application, and the High Court upheld the decision, citing non-compliance with Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and relying on a precedent. The appellants challenged these orders, arguing for a less rigid interpretation of the law and offering to deposit all due amounts. The question arose whether a rigid application of deposit requirements under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, was justified when a substantial part of the decreed amount was deposited, and the remaining amount, though not explicitly quantified by the decreeing court, was later offered for deposit, especially in a case seeking to set aside an ex parte eviction decree. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court and High Court took an overly technical view. It emphasized that a bonafide attempt to comply with deposit requirements should not lead to the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree, especially when the remaining amounts were not explicitly quantified by the decree. The Court further noted that the appellants' prompt action in depositing the full amount due during the appeal demonstrated a willingness to comply. Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the ex parte decree, restoring the suit for merits, allowing the appellants an opportunity to contest the matter, and directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously.