Special Appeal Against RERA Tribunal Order Is Barred Under Section 100-A CPC, Division Bench Holds

A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh heard a special appeal filed by a promoter challenging an order of the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (UPREAT) and the subsequent dismissal of an appeal by a Single Judge under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("Act, 2016"). Counsel debated whether a Letters Patent-style special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 was maintainable against a Single Judge’s decision on an appeal from the Tribunal.

The Court held that the special appeal was not maintainable and dismissed the petition as barred by Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Division Bench relied on Supreme Court authority in Kamal Kumar Dutta and concluded that the UPREAT possessed the "trappings of a court" similar to those considered in Kamal Kumar Dutta, making a further Letters Patent appeal impermissible where a Single Judge decided an appeal from an original order. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the UPREAT has trappings of the court similar to the CLB and therefore, the ratio of Kamal Kumar Dutta (supra) would apply with all force to the present case as well, thereby no special appeal would be maintainable against an order passed under Section 58 of the Act, 2016 before the Division Bench." The Court further recorded that the present appeal "would be barred under Section 100-A CPC" and accordingly dismissed the special appeal as not maintainable.

Background

The dispute arose when the respondent booked an apartment from the appellant, Ratan Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., under a builder-buyer agreement that specified expected possession in December 2019. On account of delay, the respondent lodged a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer under the Act, 2016 seeking compensation. The Adjudicating Officer granted relief by order dated 10.02.2023. The promoter appealed to the UPREAT which, by order dated 14.05.2025, quashed and set aside the Adjudicating Officer’s order and substituted directions for payment of delayed interest on the deposited amount. The promoter then preferred an appeal under Section 58 to the High Court; a learned Single Judge dismissed that appeal. The promoter filed the present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 seeking cognizance of the Single Judge’s order.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the special appeal was not maintainable, relying on the Full Bench decision in Sheet Gupta and the Supreme Court judgment in Kamal Kumar Dutta, which applied Section 100-A CPC to preclude Letters Patent appeals where a Single Judge decided an appeal from an original or quasi-judicial authority that had the trappings of a court. The appellant urged that the Tribunal was not a "court" within the limitation of Chapter VIII Rule 5 and relied on a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Promoshirt for support. The Division Bench examined the statutory scheme of the Act, noting the Adjudicating Officer’s powers under Section 35 and the Tribunal’s powers under Section 53, and compared those provisions with the Companies Act provisions considered in Kamal Kumar Dutta. The Court concluded that the Act created a complete code for adjudication, that the Tribunal’s powers and deeming provisions were akin to CLB’s earlier provisions, and that Kamal Kumar Dutta’s ratio therefore applied. The Court recorded that the appeal had earlier been found time-barred by the office but the delay was condoned on 19.01.2026; notwithstanding condonation, the Court dismissed the special appeal as not maintainable under Section 100-A CPC.

Case Details: Case No.: SPLA No. - 28 of 2026 Case Title: Ratan Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. through its Practicing Company Secretary Mr. Alakh Pandey Versus Anil Kumar Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sudeep Kumar (Sr. Adv.), Mahima Pahwa, Shreshth Srivastava, Alok Kumar Mishra, Prashant Kumar Singh For the Respondent(s): Shivendra Rao