ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The only point for consideration is, whether the High Court was justified in not entertaining the appeal on account of non-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant did deposit the entire decretal amount before the Tribunal at Jalandhar though the requirement under the aforesaid section was to deposit Rs. 25,000/- on 50% of the decretal amount whichever is less along with the Memo of Appeal. The High Court came to the conclusion, the appellant had to deposit Rs. 25,000/- in the High Court alongwith the Memo of Appeal. It is true, under the said section that is so but since on the facts of the case, the appellant under misconception did deposit not only the said limited amount but entire decretal amount before the Tribunal. We do not find it would be just and proper to let this appeal be dismissed on this ground of not having deposited along with the Memo of Appeal. The purpose of the said section has been more than satisfied by the said deposit. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19th April, 2000 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the High Court to entertain the appeal by treating it to be properly filed by the appellant. The High Court will then decide the appeal is accordance with law on merits. 5. The appeal is allowed. Costs on the parties. Appeal allowed.