Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeals in RERA Execution Case, Holding Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC Applicable. The court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order disallowing amendment to execution applications seeking construction by decree holders at promoter's cost.

Second appeals against order of Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal disallowing amendment in execution applications under RERA.

Appellants sought to amend execution applications to include a prayer for execution under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC, i.e., to have the construction done by themselves or by a person appointed by the Tribunal at the cost of the judgment debtor.

The Appellate Tribunal disallowed the amendment, holding that Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC is not applicable to RERA execution proceedings.

The Authority passed orders dated 28 March 2020 directing the promoter to complete construction and execute agreements. The promoter failed to comply, and the Authority passed decrees under Section 37 read with Section 40 RERA. The decrees were affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Execution applications were filed, and the appellants sought amendment to include execution under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC, which was disallowed by the Tribunal on 10 July 2025.

Whether the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable to execution of decrees passed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016? Whether the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has the power to allow execution of a decree by having the construction done by the decree holder or by a person appointed by the Tribunal at the cost of the judgment debtor? Whether the amendment sought by the appellants to include such a prayer in the execution applications was rightly disallowed by the Tribunal?

Appellants argued that Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC is applicable to RERA execution proceedings as RERA does not provide a complete code for execution, and the Code applies by virtue of Sections 88 and 89 of RERA. They contended that the Tribunal has inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow the amendment. Respondent argued that RERA is a self-contained code and the provisions of CPC are not applicable. They contended that the Tribunal has no power to order execution under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC, and the amendment would change the nature of the decree.

The provisions of Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable to execution of decrees passed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, as RERA does not provide a complete code for execution and the Code applies by virtue of Sections 88 and 89 of RERA. The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has the power to allow execution of a decree by having the construction done by the decree holder or by a person appointed by the Tribunal at the cost of the judgment debtor, and such a prayer can be included by way of amendment in the execution application.

These Second Appeals are directed against a common order dated 10 July 2025 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (the Appellate Tribunal), whereby the applications preferred by the respective Appellants ... for amendment in Execution Application ... came to be disallowed to the extent the Appellants sought direction that the construction of the real estate project in question be done by the decree holders or such other persons appointed by the Tribunal at the cost of the judgment debtor and the expenses thereof be ascertained and recovered from the judgment debtor as if it were included in the decree, so as to execute the decree in the manner provided under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code).

The appellants filed complaints before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, which passed orders on 28 March 2020. The Authority later passed decrees under Section 37 read with Section 40 RERA. The decrees were affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The appellants filed execution applications before the Appellate Tribunal. On 10 July 2025, the Tribunal disallowed the amendment sought by the appellants to include a prayer for execution under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC. The appellants filed second appeals before the Bombay High Court, which were heard together and decided on 24 June 2026.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXI Rule 32(5), Section 151
• Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: Section 37, Section 38, Section 40, Section 71, Section 88, Section 89
• Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2018: Rule 26