(supra) considered a similar issue. In that case, the deposit was less by ₹ 100/-. The application filed by the decree holder therein seeking permission to deposit to make the deficiency good, after expiry of the time granted by the court, was allowed. The order was upheld by this court. In para Page 11 of 1721, this court opined that the Trial Court in the decree only mentioned a sum to be deposited by the decree holder minus the amount of “zare- panjum”. The amount was not specified in the judgment. Error in calculation occurred, as a result of which ₹ 100/- was deposited less. The application filed by the decree holder therein with challan annexed was allowed by the court without pointing out the error. After deposit of the amount though little deficient, even the possession of the property was delivered to the decree-holder. Relevant paras 20, 21, 25 and 26 are extracted below: “20. In the third category of cases, namely, non- deposit of only a relatively small fraction of the