Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from three second appeals filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) by Kailash Patil, a developer/promoter, against orders of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The respondents are allottees of a residential project who had filed complaints before the Regulatory Authority, which passed an order against the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals online within the limitation period under Section 44(2) of the RERA Act, challenging the common order dated 28th February 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. However, the appellant failed to file hard copies of the appeal memos along with attachments within the prescribed time. On 13th May 2019, the Appellate Tribunal observed that since hard copies were not submitted and the appellant did not attend any hearing, it was evident that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeals, and consequently dismissed the appeals. The appellant filed restoration applications (M.A. Nos. 698-700 of 2022) seeking permission to file hard copies and restore the appeals, but the Appellate Tribunal dismissed those applications as well. The core legal issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeals and the restoration applications on the ground of non-filing of hard copies. The appellant argued that the appeals were filed online within limitation and the failure to file hard copies was a procedural lapse that should be condoned in the interest of justice. The respondents contended that the Tribunal's order was correct as the appellant had not complied with procedural requirements. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the RERA Act and the Limitation Act, 1963, and held that the Tribunal ought to have considered the restoration application on merits rather than dismissing it solely on the ground of non-filing of hard copies. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not override substantial justice, especially when the appeals were filed within limitation. The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the restoration applications on merits, directing the Tribunal to decide the same expeditiously. The appeals were allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Real Estate Law - RERA Appeal - Filing of Hard Copies - Section 58, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - The issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing appeals for non-filing of hard copies after online filing within limitation. The High Court held that the Tribunal ought to have considered the restoration application on merits and not dismissed it solely on the ground of non-filing of hard copies, as the appeals were filed within time and the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay. (Paras 2-10) B) Procedural Law - Restoration of Appeal - Condonation of Delay - Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 - The Court held that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in filing hard copies and restored the appeals, as the appellant had filed the appeals online within limitation and the failure to file hard copies was a procedural lapse that could be condoned in the interest of justice. (Paras 8-10) C) Real Estate Law - Appellate Tribunal Powers - Restoration - Section 58, RERA Act - The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal has the power to restore appeals dismissed for default, and the Tribunal's refusal to consider the restoration application on merits was erroneous. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the Appellant failed to file hard copies of the appeal memos and in dismissing the restoration application filed by the Appellant for seeking permission to file the hard copies and restore the appeals.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the restoration applications on merits, directing the Tribunal to decide the same expeditiously.
Law Points
- Substantial compliance
- procedural justice
- restoration of appeal
- condonation of delay
- RERA Act Section 58
- Appellate Tribunal powers
