Case Note & Summary
Background — The dispute arose from agreements for purchase of three office units A-3010, A-3020, and A-3130 in a project by respondent no.1 developer. The purchasers filed complaints before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, alleging failure to hand over possession by the agreed date of 31 December 2014. Facts — The RERA Authority allowed the complaints on 16 August 2019, directing the developer to pay interest, the complainants to pay infra charges with interest, parties to adjust claims, and upon receipt of full agreed amount the developer to hand over possession with occupation certificate. A rectification order was uploaded on 14 October 2019 with revised payment schedule signed by both parties. Petitioners claimed no amount was due and sent a letter dated 4 March 2020 stating the developer owed Rs.14,07,165.67. On 28 February 2021, petitioners applied to RERA for issuance of a possession warrant; RERA directed them to approach the civil court under Section 40 read with Rule 4. The civil court dismissed the execution application as not maintainable. Petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging that dismissal. During pendency, the developer filed Writ Petition No. 1794 of 2024 challenging the recovery warrant. On 9 July 2025, a coordinate bench passed an order granting interim protection to the developer directing no coercive steps against it, based on submissions that the purchaser had obtained a possession warrant and was pursuing execution. The court in the present petition noted that the coordinate bench was not informed that the execution application had already been dismissed and that this petition was partly heard. Legal Issues — Whether the civil court could execute a RERA possession order under Section 40 and the Maharashtra RERA Rules; whether the suppression of facts before the coordinate bench vitiated the interim protection; and whether the petitioners had fulfilled conditions for possession. Arguments — Petitioners argued that the rectified payment schedule was agreed and no amount was due; they sought enforcement of possession and framing of rules for possession warrants. Developer's counsel tendered the coordinate bench order and submitted that no coercive steps were directed, but later conceded that the coordinate bench was not informed about the dismissal. Court's Analysis — The court recorded that the developer suppressed material facts and made misleading submissions to obtain interim protection, which was an attempt to protract the hearing and overreach the orders. It emphasized that an advocate is first an officer of the court and must place true and correct facts before the court. Decision — The final decision on merits is not available in the provided text; the court recorded findings of suppression and continued hearing.
Headnote
A) Real Estate Regulation - Execution of RERA Orders - Section 40(1), Section 40(2) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rules 4, 5 of Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules - RERA Authority directed complainants to approach civil court for possession warrant under Section 40 read with Rule 4; the civil court dismissed execution application as not maintainable, prompting this writ petition. (Paras 9-11)
B) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Execution Application - Section 40 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - The core issue was whether the civil court could execute a RERA possession order; petitioners had applied for execution after RERA declined to issue possession warrant and directed them to civil court. (Paras 10-11)
C) Professional Ethics - Duty of Counsel and Suppression of Facts - Section 40 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - The court recorded that developer's counsel suppressed material facts before coordinate bench, namely that execution application was dismissed and present petition was part heard; false submissions led to interim protection; the court held that an advocate is first an officer of the court and suppression amounts to overreach, and interim direction would not impede hearing in this petition. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the execution application for enforcement of a RERA possession order is maintainable before the civil court under Section 40 read with Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules; whether the coordinate bench order dated 9 July 2025 granting interim protection was obtained by suppression of facts and whether it should influence the present petition; whether the developer's conduct of suppressing facts amounted to overreach; whether the petitioners had fulfilled their payment obligations under the RERA order so as to be entitled to possession of the three units
Law Points
- An advocate is first an officer of the court and must place true and correct facts before court
- suppression of facts before a coordinate bench amounts to overreach and abuse of process
- execution of RERA possession orders requires approach to civil court under Section 40 read with Rule 4 of Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules
- parties must comply with RERA order obligations before possession
- interim protection obtained by misrepresentation cannot impede hearing
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 126
WRIT PETITION NO. 1195 OF 2025
Mr. Kaustubh Patil a/w. Dixit Parmar for Petitioners; Mr. Amit Gharte for Respondent No.1; Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent No.3-State
Seema Sureshchandra Mehata, Dr. Hrushikesh Surshchandra Mehata
Marvel Realtors & Developers Limited, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging civil court order dismissing execution application for RERA possession order as not maintainable; also involves allegations of suppression of facts before coordinate bench.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the civil court's dismissal and sought directions to enforce the RERA order for possession, including framing of rules and mechanism for issuing possession warrants under Section 40(2) and Rule 5 of the RERA Rules, and alternatively directing the Secretary of RERA to issue possession warrant.
Filing Reason
The RERA Authority had directed the developer to hand over possession of three units after payment of agreed amounts, but the civil court dismissed the petitioners' execution application as not maintainable, prompting this writ petition.
Previous Decisions
RERA Authority order dated 16 August 2019 allowed complaints and directed payment of interest, infra charges, adjustment of claims, and handover of possession; RERA order dated 20 November 2020 directed claim statement and issuance of recovery warrant under Section 40(1); RERA order dated 28 February 2021 directed complainants to approach civil court for possession under Section 40 read with Rule 4; Civil court dismissed execution application; Coordinate bench order dated 9 July 2025 in Writ Petition No. 1794 of 2024 granted interim protection to developer.
Issues
Whether the execution application for enforcement of RERA possession order is maintainable before the civil court under Section 40 read with Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
Whether the coordinate bench order dated 9 July 2025 granting interim protection was obtained by suppression of facts and whether it should influence the present petition
Whether the developer's conduct of suppressing facts amounted to overreach and contempt of court proceedings
Whether the petitioners had fulfilled their payment obligations under the RERA order so as to be entitled to possession of the three units
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners' counsel argued that after rectification order dated 14 October 2019, revised payment schedule was signed by both parties, and no amount was due from complainants; they sent letter dated 4 March 2020 showing developer owed Rs.14,07,165.67 and sought balance payment and possession but got no response.
Petitioners' counsel submitted that the RERA Authority directed the Secretary to send papers to civil court, and petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions for mechanism to issue possession warrants, framing rules, and considering their application for possession warrant.
Developer's counsel tendered copy of coordinate bench order dated 9 July 2025 and submitted that no coercive steps were directed against developer; later agreed that the coordinate bench was not informed about dismissal of execution application and that the interim direction would not impede concluding arguments in this petition.
Learned counsel for developer submitted that after advance notice, Writ Petition No. 1794 of 2024 was mentioned before coordinate bench on 9 July 2025 for urgent relief; he fairly stated that the mentioning praecipe did not disclose that execution application was dismissed and that this petition was part heard.
Ratio Decidendi
An advocate is first an officer of the court and must place before the court all true and correct facts; suppression of material facts to obtain interim relief from a coordinate bench amounts to overreach and abuse of process.
Judgment Excerpts
An advocate is first an officer of the court and is expected to place before the court all the true and correct facts.
Thus, by making false submissions before the coordinate bench, the developer persuaded the coordinate bench to grant interim relief that 'no coercive steps shall be taken by execution Court against Petitioner – Developer in respect of the subject Units.'
I am constrained to record that this attempt on behalf of the developer is nothing but an attempt to protract the further hearing of this petition and to overreach the orders likely to be passed in this petition for the execution of the order in favour of the purchasers.
Procedural History
Complaint allowed by RERA Authority on 16 August 2019; rectification order uploaded on 14 October 2019; letter dated 4 March 2020 sent by petitioners to developer claiming balance; RERA order dated 20 November 2020 directed claim statement and recovery warrant; application for possession warrant made on 28 February 2021 before RERA; RERA directed approach civil court; civil court dismissed execution application as not maintainable; petitioners filed present writ petition; on 16 June 2025 court directed final disposal on 8 July 2025; on 8 July 2025 partly heard and listed 14 July 2025; on 9 July 2025 coordinate bench passed order in Writ Petition No. 1794 of 2024 granting interim protection based on suppressed facts; judgment delivered on 14 July 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: Section 40(1), Section 40(2)
- Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules: Rule 4, Rule 5
