ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Second Appeal under section 58 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 [ in short '' the Act, 2016''] has been filed against the order dated 16.4.2019 passed by M.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bhopal in Appeal No. 32/2019 by which the application filed by the appellant from exemption from deposit of 30% of the amount as required under section 43(5) of the Act, 2016 has been rejected.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short is that the respondent had filed a complaint before the M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority [in short '' the RER Authority''] under section 31 of the Act, 2016 read with Rule 25 and 26 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 [in short ''the Rules, 2017''] on the ground that in response to an advertisement, the respondent Bank had submitted its tender for showroom/shop ad-measuring 128.27 Sq. Mtr. situated at first floor of Madhav Plaza Shopping Complex. The tender submitted by the respondent/Bank was accepted and accordingly, prescribed amount was deposited, but in spite of the fact that entire amount has been deposited, the appellant has failed to deliver the possession of the property nor the registration of shop No. FS-5 has been made in favour of the respondent/Bank.

4. The RER Authority allowed the complaint and by order dated 26.7.2018 directed the appellant to refund the entire amount deposited by the respondent/Bank along with interest and further forwarded the matter to the adjudicating authority to determine the value of interest on entire amount as ordered to be refunded.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the RER Authority, the appellant has filed an appeal under section 44 of the Act, 2016.

6. The appellant also filed an application under section 43(5) of the Act, 2016 seeking exemption from depositing 30% of the mandatory amount as required under section 43(5) of the Act, 2016.

7. The Tribunal has rejected the application by the impugned order dated 16.4.2019.

8. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the present second appeal has been filed.

9. Before hearing on the question of admission, the Counsel for the appellant was directed to argue on the question of maintainability of this appeal.

10. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that even against an interlocutory order, Second Appeal would lie before the High Court under section 58 of the Act, 2016.

11. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent, that the Second Appeal against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the order passed by Bombay High Court in the case of Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd. v. Danish Ansari passed on 4.9.2018 in Second Appeal (ST) No. 25167 of 2018.

12. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

13. Section 58 of the Act, 2016 reads as under :

''58. Appeal to High Court.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the High Court, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):

Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

Explanation.-The expression "High Court" means the High Court of a State or Union Territory where the real estate project is situated.

(2) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order made by the Appellate Tribunal with the consent of the parties.''

14. Now the centripetal question for determination is that whether the word "order" mentioned in section 58 of the Act, 2016 would include interlocutory order(s) or not?

15. Although the "Word" has not been defined in t