JUDGMENT : (NITIN JAMDAR, C.J.) Heard Mr.K.Shaj, learned counsel for the Appellants, Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, learned Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr.Saijo Hassan, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, Mr.C.M.Nazar, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mr.A.Kevin Thomas, learned counsel for the party Respondents and Mr.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader. 2. The Appellants – Flat purchasers who are the Respondents in the Writ Petitions filed by the Original Petitioner – a developer, are aggrieved by the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge while admitting the Writ Petitions. By the impugned interim orders dated 17 October 2024 and 18 October 2024, the learned Single Judge opined that the interpretation of the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 be required to be considered, admitted the Appeals and directed that in the interregnum, the 2 nd Respondent shall retain the appeal filed by the petitioner on its files. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that there is no question of debate on the interpretation of proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, (RERA Act) as the stipulation for deposit is mandatory. He submits that if the deposit is not made, the appeals filed by the developers against the order passed under the RERA Act are required to be dismissed. He further submitted that, due to the pendency of the writ petitions and in view of the interim order, no progress is being made by the Appellate Authority, which is construing the order passed by the learned Single Judge as a complete embargo. The learned counsel for the Original Petitioner submitted that what is challenged is only an interim order and the Writ Petitions are posted for hearing and also 30% of the amount has been deposited. According to the Appellants, 30% of the deposit is not as contemplated by the Statute. 4. All that we read from the impugned order is that, despite the lack of deposit, the appeals filed should not be dismissed and should be retained. The impugned orders do not specifically stay the order passed by the RERA Authority, which is the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority. 5. 4. All that we read from the impugned order is that, despite the lack of deposit, the appeals filed should not be dismissed and should be retained. The impugned orders do not specifically stay the order passed by the RERA Authority, which is the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority. 5. We grant leave to the Appellants to bring this fact to the notice of the Appellate Authority, so that the Appellate Authority can proceed further as per law as regards the implementation of the order of the RERA Authority. We also leave it open to the parties to make a request before the learned Single Judge to take up the Writ Petitions at an early date. 6. With these clarifications, the appeals are disposed of.