JUDGMENT : Petitioners challenge Ext.P11 and Ext.P17 orders issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, respectively. 2. The issue arises from an interim order in S.A.No.47/2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I Ernakulam. By Ext.P11 order dated 30/3/2022 in I.A.No.426 of 2022, the Tribunal granted an interim stay of confirmation of sale scheduled as per notice dated 7/3/2022, on condition that petitioners deposit an amount of Rs.3,55,00,000/- by 30/4/2022 as first instalment and another sum of Rs.3,55,00,000/- as second instalment by 27/5/2022. In the challenge preferred against the said interim order, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, issued an order in AIR No.80/2022, by its proceedings dated 17/5/2022 in an application seeking waiver of the statutory deposit. The order directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.9,01,51,596/- in two equal instalments. This original petition assails the said proceedings dated 17/5/2022, which is produced as Ext.P17. 3. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, duly instructed by Adv. N. Sasi submitted that, it fails all comprehension as to how when an order directing a deposit of Rs.7,10,00,000/- is impugned, the Appellate Tribunal could direct, in an application for waiver of the statutory deposit, the petitioners to deposit Rs.9,01,51,596/-. It was further asserted that the said direction to deposit an amount higher than what was directed by the Tribunal defeats the very purpose of providing an appellate remedy and is too onerous a condition, defying logic and fairness. 4. Sri. S. Easwaran, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order impugned cannot be interfered with in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the order issued on the basis of a concession given by the learned counsel for the petitioners and that they cannot now turn around and plead the contra. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 17/5/2022, I notice that the Appellate Tribunal has observed in the impugned proceedings as follows : “Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants sought time to deposit the said amount of Rs.9,01,51,596/-, in two equal instalments. Considering his request, Petitioners/Appellants is directed to deposit the above referred amount of Rs.9,01,51,596/-, in two equal instalments, 1st instalment of Rs.4,50,75,798/- on or before 13.06.2022 and remaining amount of Rs.4,50,75,798/- on or before 13.07.2022.” 6. Considering his request, Petitioners/Appellants is directed to deposit the above referred amount of Rs.9,01,51,596/-, in two equal instalments, 1st instalment of Rs.4,50,75,798/- on or before 13.06.2022 and remaining amount of Rs.4,50,75,798/- on or before 13.07.2022.” 6. A reading of the aforesaid observations of the Appellate Tribunal indicates that the said direction to deposit is based upon the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants seeking time to deposit the said amount. Though the learned Senior Counsel asserted that such submissions were never made and on the other hand it was an order that is issued in the ‘usual course of the proceedings’ and that cannot be treated as an estoppal against the petitioners, I cannot accept the said submission in these proceedings. 7. It is trite law that once an observation on a concession is made in an order of Court, even if it is by a mistake or done erroneously, the same can be corrected only through an application preferred before the same Court/authority. Therefore, if the concession recorded is a mistake, remedy of the petitioners is to approach the same forum. Accordingly, reserving the liberty of the petitioners, to prefer appropriate application to seek correction of the aforementioned observations, if made on account of an error, this original petition is disposed of. 8. Since it is submitted by the learned counsel across the Bar that the appeal is listed before the Tribunal only on 14/6/2022, and it would be difficult to get a listing of the matter before the Appellate Tribunal on an earlier date, this Court is of the opinion that, if the urgency of the matter is brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal, certainly appropriate listing of the appeal will be granted by the Appellate Tribunal, to avoid prejudice to the parties. With the above observations, this original petition is disposed.