Berry Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Ummed Singh & Anr.
Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur — Appeal No. 121/2026
Decision dated: 8 September 2026
Complaint No.: RAJ-RERA-C-2023-6625
I have reviewed the full 9-page REAT order. The case is principally about condonation of an inordinate delay in filing a RERA appeal, rather than the merits of the allottee’s claim. The Tribunal rejected the delay application and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
1. Facts
The dispute originated from an allotment made by Berry Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to Ummed Singh on 4 May 2016 under the Rajasthan Affordable Housing Policy, 2009.
According to the appellant-developer:
the allotment was subsequently cancelled for non-payment;
the relevant housing scheme was discontinued before RERA came into force on 1 May 2017;
the developer claimed that it was willing to refund the principal amount of ₹3,13,814, but disputed liability for interest;
the original RERA complaint was decided by the Rajasthan RERA Authority on 14 August 2024.
The developer thereafter filed Appeal No. 121/2026 challenging the RERA Authority's order.
2. Delay in filing the appeal
The crucial issue was limitation.
The Tribunal recorded that the appeal suffered from an inordinate delay, with the Registry recording 549 days of delay. The appellant sought condonation under Section 44(2) of the RERA Act, 2016.
The developer cited several reasons:
attempts at amicable settlement;
retrieval of old physical records;
complexity concerning jurisdiction, limitation and Section 18;
consultation with senior counsel;
internal corporate approvals;
coordination between the company's Delhi and Bhiwadi offices.
The developer argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent and relied upon Supreme Court precedents favouring a liberal approach to condonation of delay.
3. Respondent's objection
Ummed Singh opposed condonation.
It was argued that:
the delay was unexplained and excessive;
the alleged settlement discussions were unsupported by documentary evidence;
the developer was itself the custodian of its records;
internal approvals and administrative processing could not constitute "sufficient cause";
the developer had knowledge of the proceedings, including execution proceedings, but had not acted diligently.
The respondent therefore argued that the appeal should be rejected at the threshold without entering into its merits.
4. Issue before REAT
The principal issue was:
Whether the developer had established sufficient cause for condoning the substantial delay in filing the appeal under Section 44(2) of the RERA Act, 2016?
The Tribunal did not proceed to adjudicate the substantive questions concerning jurisdiction, the applicability of RERA to the pre-RERA allotment, or entitlement to interest under Section 18, because the appeal itself was found to be barred by limitation.
5. Finding of the Tribunal
The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay.
It specifically noted that there was no document on record substantiating the alleged settlement discussions. There was no letter showing that the complainant had been invited to participate in settlement discussions, and the complainant's reply did not support the existence of such negotiations.
The Tribunal held, in substance, that merely describing the delay as bona fide or stating that settlement talks were underway is insufficient. The appellant was required to explain the circumstances that actually prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.
The Tribunal also held that:
complexity of legal issues;
internal corporate processing;
obtaining authorisation;
preparation of appeal papers; and
the existence of a strong prima-facie case
cannot, by themselves, constitute sufficient cause for condoning such an inordinate delay.
6. Supreme Court principles applied
The Tribunal relied upon several Supreme Court decisions concerning limitation and "sufficient cause", particularly:
Basawaraj & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy
Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr.
The Tribunal emphasised that the liberal approach to limitation is not unlimited. The conduct, diligence and bona fides of the party seeking condonation remain relevant.
It particularly relied on the principle that limitation law serves the public interest by encouraging diligence and preventing stale claims from remaining indefinitely unsettled.
7. Importance of Section 44 of RERA
The Tribunal also highlighted the special character of the RERA legislation.
Under Section 44(5), an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is expected to be dealt with expeditiously, with an endeavour to dispose of it within 60 days of receipt of the appeal.
The Tribunal reasoned that permitting an unexplained and substantial delay would undermine the legislative objective of providing speedy and effective remedies to allottees.
8. Final decision
The Tribunal held that the appellant had failed to establish the required "sufficient cause".
Accordingly:
The application under Section 44(2) seeking condonation of delay was rejected.
Appeal No. 121/2026 was consequently dismissed as barred by limitation.
There was no order as to costs.
The Tribunal directed the Registry to transmit ₹7,28,197.47 deposited by the appellant-promoter under the mandatory requirement of Section 43(5) of RERA to the complainant's bank account after expiry of the appeal limitation period.
Any interim order or pending miscellaneous application stood vacated.
9. Ratio Decidendi
An appellant seeking condonation of substantial delay in a RERA appeal must establish a specific, credible and sufficiently documented "sufficient cause". Mere assertions of settlement negotiations, retrieval of old records, internal corporate approvals, legal consultation or preparation of appeal papers do not automatically constitute sufficient cause. Where an inordinate delay remains unexplained, the Rajasthan REAT may reject the Section 44(2) application and dismiss the appeal without examining the merits.
10. Practical impact
This decision is particularly relevant to developers/promoters seeking to challenge adverse RERA orders after expiry of the statutory appeal period.
The key takeaway is that a promoter cannot ordinarily rely upon internal administrative processes or undocumented settlement discussions to explain a prolonged delay. The applicant should be able to demonstrate, with supporting material, precisely why it was prevented from filing the appeal within time.
The decision also reinforces that limitation is not merely a technical procedural defence in RERA proceedings. The Tribunal connects limitation with RERA's broader legislative objective of providing timely resolution of real-estate disputes.
