High Court Must Not Decide Merits in Condonation Appeals; Supreme Court Restores RERA Appeals

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard appeals arising from two RERA complaints for possession of flats in the Lodha Venezia and Lodha Azzuro projects, challenging a common Bombay High Court judgment that dismissed second appeals after upholding the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to condone delay in filing appeals.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment dated 23.08.2023 and the Appellate Tribunal order dated 01.12.2022, condoned the delay in filing the appeals and directed restoration of the matters to the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for decision on merits. The Court emphasised that where a higher court itself observed that “in normal circumstances the delay ought to have been condoned,” it ought not to have proceeded to comment on the merits of the underlying orders while the Appellate Tribunal had not considered their correctness. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Once the High Court opined that in normal circumstances the delay ought to have been condoned, it ought not to have commented upon the merits of the orders dated 23.07.2019 and 16.10.2019, particularly, when the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai had not dealt with the correctness of those orders. In such circumstances, the High Court should have set aside the order rejecting the delay condonation application, condoned the delay and restored the appeals on the file of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for consideration on merits." The Court also clarified, "It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the orders dated 23.07.2019 and 16.10.2019 passed by RERA, Mumbai."

Background The disputes originated from two complaints filed before RERA, Mumbai (Complaint Nos. CC006000000056663 and 006000000056656) by allottees claiming possession of flats. The appellants impleaded Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. and Macrotech Developers Ltd. (erstwhile Lodha Developers Ltd.). RERA discharged Macrotech Developers on a privity objection and thereafter dismissed the complaints by order dated 16.10.2019. The appellants filed appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal on 10.12.2019, within 60 days of the final order, but because they also challenged the order dated 23.07.2019 they sought condonation of delay. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals as time-barred, observing the July order had been passed "with consent" and that no sufficient cause existed to condone delay. The High Court, while noting that "in the normal circumstances, I would have condoned the delay," declined to interfere and dismissed the second appeals, remarking that the July order appeared to have been passed with consent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded the scope of its review by commenting on merits when the sole issue before it was the correctness of the Tribunal's refusal to condone delay. The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court and Appellate Tribunal orders, condoned the delay, restored the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal to decide on merits, and disposed of pending applications, expressly refraining from any view on the substantive merits of the RERA orders.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 928 of 2025 & Civil Appeal No. 929 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25540 & 24959 of 2023) Case Title: Surendra G. Shankar & Anr. v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.; Dilip Kumar v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate