HREAT = The Decree Holder is Entitled to Get the Interest for the period of Date of Expected Payment till the Actual Payment of Amount.

HREAT = The Decree Holder is Entitled to Get the Interest for the period of Date of Expected Payment till the Actual Payment of Amount.

Hari Ballabh Sharma V/s Pareena Infrastructure Private Limited

Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribual

Appeal No.133 of 2023

Date of Decision:  30.11.2023 

Fact of the Case :-

• In 2015 ,The appellant/allottee paid booking amount to the respondent/promoter for booking of a flat under Affordable Housing Policy” of Government of Haryana.
• on June 23, 2016 the appellant/allottee was allotted a flat in draw of lots.
• The total cost of the Flat was supposed to be Rs.17,49,330/- 
• on 19.07.2016 an ‘Apartment Buyer’s Agreement’ was executed between the parties.
• till May, 2018 The appellant/allottee made a total payment of Rs.15,70,537/-. 
• On 23.10.2018 The appellant/allottee through email and letter requested the respondent/promoter to cancel his booking after deduction of earnest money of Rs.25,000/- as per AH Policy and sought refund of the remaining amount.
• The respondent/promoter did not refund the money.

• Aggrieved with the above, the appellant/allottee filed the Original complaint number 26 of 2019 seeking relief of refund.

• On 02.04.2019 , the learned HRERA GURUGRAM Authority passed the Order of refund in favour of the appellant/allottee.

• the respondent/promoter paid the payment after 2 years in March 2021 did not pay any interest for the period it delayed the payment. 

• Aggrieved with the above, the appellant/allottee filed Execution complaint no.CR/3701/2021.

• On 05.01.2023 The said complaint was dismissed by Adjudicating Officer stating that the Decree is fully compiled.

Submissions by Appellant:-

• The appellant/allottee is aggrieved of the fact that the respondent/promoter did not make the payment to him as per the order of the Authority and forced him to file execution petition.
• The appellant contends that he is entitled to interest for the period of delay in payment of refund of Rs. 15,70,537/- from the date of the Authority's order (April 2, 2019) until March 2021, spanning two years @ 10% per annum which comes out to Rs. 3,14,107/-.

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• we deem it fit to grant interest to the appellant/allottee for the unjust delay in releasing the payment till March, 2021.
• the plea of the appellant/allottee for grant of interest of Rs. 3,14,107/- for the delay in payment beyond 90 days period till March, 2021 is legal and bonafide.

Court’s Order:-

• the said amount be paid to the appellant/allottee forthwith without any further delay.

In the Second Appeal , BOMBAY HIGH COURT upheld the Condonation of Delay granted by the MAHAREAT Stating that It is not unnatural for a flat purchaser, who had book the flat in 2011 and was yet to receive possession in 2018, to feel anxious especially when he was not permitted to inspect the flat.

In the Second Appeal , BOMBAY HIGH COURT  upheld the Condonation of Delay granted by the MAHAREAT Stating that It is not unnatural for a flat purchaser, who had book the flat in 2011 and was yet to receive possession in 2018, to feel anxious especially when he was not permitted to inspect the flat.

Lucina Land Developers Limited V/s Navin Kumar

SECOND APPEAL NO.585 OF 2020

Decided on 27 MARCH 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Question of Law framed in 2nd Appeal :-

“Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of 395 days in filing the appeal by the original complainant (Respondent herein)?

Time line of the Matter :-

1. Respondent (Allottee) filed Complaint before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, (Maharera) complaining non-delivery of possession within the agreed period and claimed interest under provisions of section 18 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
2. On 13/12/2017 Maharera disposed of the complaint holding that the Allottee failed to establish that the Appellant did not complete the project or was unable to deliver possession of the Apartment in accordance with the Agreement and directed the Appellant to handover possession of the Apartment with occupancy certificate to Allottee before 31 December 2018, failing which the Appellant was directed to pay interest as per Rule 18 with effect from 1 January 2019 till the actual date of possession on the entire amount paid by the Allottee. 
3. On 11/01/2019 Allottee filed Appeal before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal)  challenging the order along with an application seeking condonation delay in filing the appeal. 
4. On 19/08/2019 the Appellate Tribunal  allowed the application for condonation of delay.
5. The Appellant has filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 19th August 2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Fact of the Case :-

1. Allottee  purchased an apartment bearing No.203 in the project India bulls Greens-II situated at Panvel and Entered into Flat Buyer's Agreement on 18/10/2011.
2. As per the Flat Buyer's Agreement, possession was to be handed over within 60 months with grace period of 9 months.

Contentions of Appellant :-

1.  The Appellate Tribunal has committed a manifest error in condoning inordinate delay of 395 days in filing the Appeal.
2. Allottee  was not prevented by any disability or cause from filing the Appeal within the period of limitation.
3. Allottee took a false plea of heart disease, which was relatable to the year 2016.

Contentions of Respondent :- 

1. No substantial question of law is involved in the present Appeal as the impugned order merely condones delay of 395 days in filing the Appeal.
2. That Condonation of delay is the discretionary power exercised by the Appellate Court in which this Court cannot interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code).
3.  Technicalities cannot be permitted to overtake the substantive rights sought to be agitated by a flat purchaser.
4. That Allottee suffers from serious cardiac ailments for prolonged time, which is evidenced in various certificates produced before the Appellate Tribunal. 
5. That Allottee also faced financial distress on account of health issues suffered by him
6. The Allottee has excellent case on merits, and the same cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation without considering the merits involved in the Appeal.

Observations of the High Court:-

1. The short issue that requires consideration in the present Appeal is about correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in condoning delay of 395 days in filing the Appeal.
2. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion to be exercised by a Court. So long as exercise of discretion is sound, the Appellate Court shall not substitute its discretion with the discretion exercised by the Court condoning the delay 
3. it cannot be stated that there is complete absence of any cause in the application. Respondent, in his capacity as a flat purchaser first made an attempt to prosecute his complaint personally considering the ease of access provided to parties-in-person before Regulatory Authority.
4. There is sound exercise of discretion by the Appellate Tribunal in condoning the delay. So long as the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Tribunal is not arbitrary, interference by this Court in exercise of discretion is clearly unwarranted.
5.  the Respondent repeatedly pursued various issues with Appellant after passing of the order by the Regulatory Authority. The email correspondence started from 24 February 2018 and went on till 4 December 2018. Most of the emails were in respect of permission to visit the flat, since the Respondent believed that the same was not habitable
6. It is not unnatural for a flat purchaser, who had book the flat in 2011 and was yet to receive possession, to feel anxious especially when he was not permitted to inspect the flat.

Order of the High Court:-

1. the Appellate Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing the Appeal by Respondent.
2. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs. 

SC - Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice

 Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs (1988(4) SCC 402), wherein the  Apex Court observed: 

 "9. Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant."

in The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Gujarat (1975(2) SCC 175), it was held that

"...The right of appeal is the creature of a statute. Without a statutory provision creating such a right the person aggrieved is not entitled to file an appeal.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH - No appeal will be maintainable against an interim order before the Division Bench

In the Matter of Amrit Homes Private Limited vs M/S Las Vista Residents Welfare  WA No.470 of 2019 at HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR held that appeal is maintainable only as provided under the statue; particularly Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. Section 2(1) carries a 'proviso' as well, which clearly says that no appeal will be maintainable against an interim order. This scope of the said proviso has been explained by a Full Bench of this Court as per the judgment date 25/01/2017 passed in WA No.255/2016, which says that only, if the issue has been decided creating a finality to the lis, will the appeal be maintainable before the Division Bench.

Supreme Court - an executing court cannot go behind a decree and re-examine the merits of the case of the parties

 in the matter of S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (dead) by LRs in Civil Appeal No. 7800 of 2014 decided on 13.09.2019 before Supreme court of india.

The suit 

• Temple was administered by three brothers. 
• Vide a settlement deed these original owners endowed the property to the temple. 
• The deed also included a provision that the eldest son of the deceased trustee would become his successor. 
• A suit was filed on behalf of the temple by the Appellant in his capacity as trustee, seeking permanent injunction against Gnanambal and her husband, who were tenants in the suit properties at that time. 
• One Umapathymurthy was impleaded in this suit as a defendant who claimed that he was the eldest son of one of the original owners and that he had been dispossessed from the trusteeship of the temple by his younger brother.
• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Appellant holding that he was a trustee and rejected the claim of Umapathymurthy. 
• The said decree was affirmed by the first appellate court. 
• The decree holders subsequently filed an Execution Petition. 
• However, the judgment debtors (Respondents herein) filed an execution application under Section 47 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the basis that the original decree was vitiated by fraud as the heir certificate was falsely prepared. 
• The said application under Section 47 of CPC was dismissed by the executing court as non-maintainable on the ground that the judgment of the Trial Court had been confirmed by the First Appellate Court after considering all relevant evidence, and had therefore become final. 
• The said order of the executing court was challenged in revision before the High Court where the said order was reversed.

Held by Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court disagreed with the view of the High Court and reiterated that it is well-settled that an executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. 
• In the present case, the Trial Court had already considered the evidence on record and given a finding that the Appellant was the trustee of the temple.
•  This judgment was confirmed by the First Appellate Court and no further appeal was preferred by the Respondents against it. 

Therefore, an affirmed decree could not be varied now at the stage of execution.