Kumod Kumar v. M/s Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Bihar RERA)
Case No.: RERA/CC/368/2025
Order dated: 31 August 2026
Project: Ramagya Residency
This decision is important for understanding the limited scope of rectification under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Bihar RERA held that Section 39 cannot be used to reopen the merits of an earlier order, reconsider evidence, or remove a substantive finding of liability.
1. Background
The applicant, Kumod Kumar, was a former director of Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The dispute arose from an earlier complaint concerning transactions relating to the Ramagya Residency project.
In the original proceedings, Bihar RERA had passed an order dated 11 March 2022, directing Kumod Kumar and another person, Ejaz Hussain, to refund the consideration amount along with interest.
Kumod Kumar subsequently sought to have his name and liability removed from that order through a rectification application under Section 39.
2. Applicant's case
Kumod Kumar essentially argued that the original order had wrongly attributed liability to him.
His principal contentions included:
Clause 6 of the 2012 agreement allegedly placed liability upon directors of Ezzion Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.;
he was associated with Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which he contended was a different entity;
the financial transactions were allegedly handled by Ejaz Hussain;
he had resigned as director of Ezzion Constructions with effect from 21 June 2018; and
therefore, he should not personally remain liable under the earlier refund order.
The relief sought was, in substance, a substantive alteration of the earlier order so that his name and liability would be deleted.
3. What is Section 39 of RERA?
Section 39 provides the Regulatory Authority with a limited power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record.
The important words are:
“mistake apparent from the record”
This is materially different from a power to conduct a full review of the earlier decision.
A rectification proceeding is therefore intended for correcting an identifiable error apparent from the existing record—not for giving a party a second opportunity to argue the original case.
4. The central legal question
The principal question before Bihar RERA was:
Can Section 39 be used to reconsider the merits of an earlier RERA order and remove a person's substantive liability?
Answer: No.
Bihar RERA held that doing so would effectively amount to exercising a review jurisdiction, rather than a limited rectification jurisdiction.
5. What Section 39 cannot be used for
The Authority clearly identified several things that cannot ordinarily be done through rectification.
It held that rectification cannot be invoked for:
re-hearing the original matter;
re-appreciating evidence;
reconsidering disputed questions of fact;
taking a different view of material that was already considered;
substituting a fresh decision for the decision already rendered; or
materially changing a substantive finding of liability.
This is the most important part of the ruling.
In simple terms:
Correction of an apparent error → Section 39
Reconsideration of the merits → Not Section 39
Challenge to substantive findings → Appropriate appellate/other remedy
6. Why the Authority rejected Kumod Kumar's plea
The Authority found that Kumar's arguments required it to reconsider matters that had already been dealt with in the original proceedings.
His request was therefore not simply:
“Please correct an obvious error in the order.”
It was effectively:
“Please reconsider the evidence and facts and reach a different conclusion regarding my liability.”
The Authority held that such a request goes beyond the narrow jurisdiction conferred by Section 39.
7. Earlier proceedings were also relevant
The Authority took note of the fact that Kumod Kumar had previously filed another rectification petition on 13 February 2026.
That application was withdrawn pursuant to an order dated 11 May 2026.
The Authority was therefore concerned that substantially the same relief was being pursued again by giving the proceedings a different form.
This is an important procedural point.
A litigant cannot ordinarily keep reopening the same substantive issue simply by changing the label attached to the application.
8. “Rectification” cannot become “review”
This case provides a useful distinction:
| Rectification under Section 39 | Review/reconsideration |
|---|---|
| Corrects an apparent error | Re-examines the merits |
| Based on the existing record | May require reconsideration of evidence |
| Limited jurisdiction | Broader reconsideration |
| Does not ordinarily change substantive findings | Can potentially alter substantive findings |
| Corrective in nature | Adjudicatory/reconsiderative |
The Authority therefore treated Kumod Kumar's application as an attempt to obtain a substantive reconsideration of liability through a provision that does not confer such power.
9. The Authority's observation regarding the procedural reference
The applicant had referred to “Rule 27” instead of “Regulation 27” of the Bihar Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Regulations, 2024.
Bihar RERA clarified that this nomenclature error, by itself, was not sufficient to reject the application.
The Authority examined the application on its substance under Section 39 of RERA.
This is useful because the Authority distinguished between:
a technical nomenclature mistake
and
a substantive jurisdictional defect.
10. What was the final decision?
Bihar RERA rejected the application for rectification.
The Authority held that Kumod Kumar had failed to demonstrate an error apparent from the record that could properly be corrected under Section 39.
The earlier order dated 11 March 2022 therefore remained undisturbed.
However, the Authority left Kumar at liberty to pursue any other remedy available to him in law, subject to applicable statutory requirements and limitation.
11. Important procedural lesson
The decision highlights a broader principle of RERA procedure:
Choose the correct remedy.
If the grievance is:
“There is an obvious mistake in the existing order.”
→ Rectification may be appropriate.
If the grievance is:
“The Authority misunderstood the evidence and reached the wrong conclusion.”
→ That is ordinarily not a Section 39 rectification issue.
If the grievance is:
“The Authority wrongly imposed liability on me and I want the finding reconsidered.”
→ The party must consider whatever statutory appellate or other remedy is available, rather than attempting to convert Section 39 into a review provision.
12. Ratio Decidendi
The ratio of the decision can be stated as follows:
Section 39 of RERA confers a limited power of rectification and cannot be invoked to reopen the merits of an earlier decision, re-appreciate evidence, reconsider disputed questions of fact, or materially alter a substantive finding of liability. Such an exercise would amount to review, which is beyond the scope of Section 39.
13. Practical significance for RERA litigation
For promoters/directors
Where an individual has been held personally liable in a RERA proceeding, Section 39 cannot ordinarily be used simply to re-argue the factual basis of that liability.
The person must identify an apparent error in the record, rather than merely asserting that the original decision was wrong.
For homebuyers
The judgment prevents a respondent from repeatedly reopening a refund/liability order through successive rectification applications.
This supports finality of adjudication.
For RERA practitioners
Before filing a Section 39 application, it is important to ask:
Is there an actual error apparent on the face of the record?
Can the error be identified without a fresh appreciation of evidence?
Does correcting it require reconsideration of disputed facts?
Is the applicant actually seeking a different substantive outcome?
Has an earlier application concerning the same relief already been filed?
If answering questions 2–4 indicates a merits-based challenge, Section 39 may not be the appropriate route.
14. Key RERA provision
Section 39 — Rectification of orders
This is the decisive provision.
Its purpose is correction, not re-adjudication.
The judgment therefore reinforces the distinction between:
“There is an apparent mistake in the order.”
and
“The order is wrong and should be reconsidered.”
The first may fall within Section 39; the second generally requires a different legal remedy.
Final takeaway
Kumod Kumar v. M/s Ezzion Constructions Pvt. Ltd. is an important Bihar RERA authority on the limits of Section 39 rectification. The Authority refused to delete Kumod Kumar's liability because doing so would have required a fresh examination of the evidence and substantive merits of the earlier refund order. The decision makes clear that rectification is not a disguised review or appeal.
